If that was a poor attempt at sarcasm, I apologize in advance for making you look like an ass. In the future, make it more clear.
No, I assure you the stereotype that men are better at math is not fiction. It is very common in our western society, pushed by male chauvinists and by so called feminists like Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings alike.
I have not heard of your study that shows women are actually better and as far as I know it is fictional (if it was a study on young women vs young men who have not hit puberty it is irrelevant as we are talking about grown individuals, not pre-teens). Most studies have actually shown the opposite. Women score lower on math tests like the SATs than men (of course this can be easily explained as we live in a society which, despite your naive opinions, tells women they are no good in the subject).
I think in this case it is even worse because not only is their a perception of the CS world as male dominated, but there is also a prevalent notion (even among many so called feminists) that women just suck at anything having to do with math, science, or logic.
Thats why when you take a standardized test the math section is always much easier than the verbal section. Having a difficult math section is considered sexist by many because "women are no good at math" (these are probably the same people who complain about state policies that require passing standardized tests racists because "minorities are no good at taking tests").
RTFA. The problem this is causing the industry is that half the population is not available. That is a huge brain drain, and can cause massive labor shortages in the next few years.
Uh, the article talking about alleged inflated damages was talking about Mitnick, not Parson.
Besides, whining about inflated damages is just dumb. If you intentially destroy property actually worth lets say $10 million and you end up getting billed for $20 million, do you really have grounds for a complaint? You should never have destroyed it in the beginning.
This is what I get for spending time responding to trolls...
"I would also like to point out that you are apparently ignorant of the fact that the topic had drifted by then so it was no longer about just the British program."
No it hadn't. My post, which you were responding to, was clearly talking about the British program, not a fictional US one. Whats more I have repeatedly referred to it as the "British program" and this is the first time you have attempted to claim we are talking about US programs. You are clearly wrong. If any group is secretly writing the lesson plans it would be British and international record labels and trade groups, not the RIAA. Shut up and go home.
Is this really that different from Twisted Sister not allowing the Braves to use "I Wanna Rock" to introduce John Rocker? Or what if Pink Floyd wanted to stop a neo-Nazi group from using "Run Like Hell" at one of their rallies? Do you believe that artists should be forced to allow the uncontrolled use of their hard work in contexts they disapprove of?
Well said, I am forced to agree with someone from the Howard Dean campaign. However, you miss one unavoidable fact. This is slashdot and certain political views are so prevalent here that they will show themselves no matter what (hell he even found a way to get a rant against offshoring in a summary about copyrights).
Now this can be an interesting topic. Copyrights being applied to work with a political nature. There are many different sides to this and an actual debate about it would be interesting. But the geniuses at the editing department submit a summary that is itself biased to the point where it is trying to prevent a balanced discussion (it even starts out "As most/.'ers know all to well...", meaning if you disagree you are not a true slashdotter). How hard would it be to instead use an objective summary (something along the lines of "Complaints arise over the use of copyrights in political campaigns"), and then leave the opinions for the comments?
That being said...
Hypothetical question, what if Sean Hannity wanted to make a film bashing Dean well beyond what is generally considered honest journalism and wanted to use some of your footage out of context? It would be one thing to allow the Wall Street Journal or Fox News to use it in a story about the former candidate, but you believe this will be just a load of crap featuring half-truths and outright lies. Would you let them use your work to support their accusations?
No, its not a cartel either. It is a trade group representing the interests of US record companies. Other trade groups operate internationally and in other countries. Thus had your origional statement been remotely accurate, it would have been one of them, not the RIAA. Thus the fact that you claimed that it was the RIAA just shows your ignorance.
"1) Who is going to search every web page to find incorrect meta tags"
I suppose if they do a search on hotbot (or whatever still uses meta-tags) for "Immanuel Kant" and get in response pages with Cartman's mom getting pooed on, they will have found one to report. As meta tag abuse is only a problem if it is visible (meaning it makes it to the first few pages of search results), it doesn't really matter if some are hidden away and get missed.
"
2) Who is going to decide that a given page has incorrect meta-keyword information
3) Define strong relation to a web page
4) Define Excessive use of meta-keywords in HTML"
I don't know about in Germany, but here the courts are given the task of interpreting the law.
"
5) What about servers across national lines"
One would think this wouldn't affect them, but remember the Yahoo! Nazi auction case.
"
6) Does anyone really use meta-keywords other than spammers"
No. But this may be done under the hope that they could return to normal use if spammers are removed from the equation.
"It's somewhat ironic that the competitor Microsoft thought they had killed, Netscape, is now again, in the form of the now open source Mozilla and it's variants, the biggest threat to IE."
"Its not ironic, its just a coincidence."
Ok, that may have been more of a paraphrase than an actual quote, but the point remains valid.
Why should we be surprised?
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Philosophy and science have always been closely linked. Einstein had philosophical interests and Kant enjoyed astronomy. In recent years there has been a bit of a split between the two camps, but not entirely. Half of the students in my philosophy classes (I am pursuing a minor) are engineering or math students (though I go to a university known more for its engineering program than its philosophy program).
Yeah, for many here on slashdot the closest they will get to philosophy will be watching a Star Trek episode. But many others have broader interests.
I'll admit I just skimmed TFA, I didn't read it. But from what I got, this isn't that great of an idea.
The basis of putting something into a 'factory' and mass producing it is that it shouldn't require much in terms of creativity, it should be just a process of putting together the parts. If that is all a particular piece of software is, shouldn't it be easier, quicker, and cheaper to automate the development than to stick it in an assembly line type of thing?
The RIAA isn't a US company. Its a trade group representing the interests of record companies in the states. Many other countries have their own versions and there is an international trade group representing the industry, but they are not called the RIAA.
Your ignorance of this just shows that your comment was based on preconceived bias against record companies and not on known facts.
What you fail to realize is that the Hubble is in danger of reentering the Earth's atmosphere in the near future. Keeping it in operation is not a matter of just keeping the electric bill paid. In order to keep it operational we will have to send up a repair crew very soon (in a shuttle that has been grounded for good reason), along with more and more whenever repairs are needed. These costs will quickly total in the billions, not to mention the risk of using the shuttle fleet in its current condition.
Even if each trip up there is relatively cheap compared to sending up a new scope (or building a land based scope using advanced technology), the costs of keeping it up there indefinetely build up. There will come a point in the Hubble's life when it will go down for good.
Ok, so I am justified spending $X of someone else's money as long as they spent more on potato chips? Give me a break.
Keeping Hubble up there would cost billions of dollars, plus the risk involved in sending astronauts up in an old shuttle fleet. Maybe you think thats trivial, but NASA has determined that they have better uses of that money.
The government (like any business or individual) has to make what we call decisions about what to spend their budget on. Some things get funded, some don't. Deal with it.
I believe you completely missed the point. I, nor anyone else here, am advocating a complete halt to science and technology. What I am advocating is not giving agencies blank checks of taxpayer money to continue funding research programs that have already gone past their expected lifespan, especially when there are better alternatives worthy of funding even in the same field.
And don't give me any crap about this being about 'science'. To think that is either naive or disingenuous. Imagine if a similar situation happened in another field. What if a biologist's request to expand research on the genome of a field mouse was denied so funds could instead focus on working on another animal? Clearly this research is just as important, if not more important, than staring at celestial bodies millions of light years away. Would there be mass protests? Would millions of citizens write angry letters to their congressmen demanding them to add more funding to this program? Would ACs rush to/. to write angry posts denouncing anyone suggesting that this may be the correct path? I think not.
We all know what is really fueling the "Save the Hubble" movement. Its an emotional connection to something that gives us pretty pictures of something we have long associated with superstition and religion. Support saving the Hubble all you want, just be honest enough to admit you are not doing it in the name of science.
Whats the worst thing that could happen if there is a period of time where we are without a space telescope? This isn't exactly a life-critical piece of machinery.
The Hubble is done. Deal with it. If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one.
Oh, I'm sorry. I failed to realize that you had access to lesson plans that have yet to be written. I was under the impression that you were basing this not on facts, but rather on your prejudices against anything having to do with intellectual property.
Out of curiousity, do get always get upset when lectures are "one-sided"? For instance, do you cry fowl when History lessons "indoctrinate" the kids that the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, communism, and nazism are bad things? After all, I don't recall a neo-nazi coming to class one day and giving us his side when we were in school. If 'one-sided biased' lectures are really so bad certaintly representatives from all movements outside of the mainstream, not just those you personally agree with, should have their say, right? I suppose that is a valid point of view, just not one I nor most of the population would support. But tell you what, I'll give you a chance to defend it before I dismiss it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I assure you the stereotype that men are better at math is not fiction. It is very common in our western society, pushed by male chauvinists and by so called feminists like Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings alike.
I have not heard of your study that shows women are actually better and as far as I know it is fictional (if it was a study on young women vs young men who have not hit puberty it is irrelevant as we are talking about grown individuals, not pre-teens). Most studies have actually shown the opposite. Women score lower on math tests like the SATs than men (of course this can be easily explained as we live in a society which, despite your naive opinions, tells women they are no good in the subject).
Ah, monkey jokes. Many a comic has made a living off those.
Thats why when you take a standardized test the math section is always much easier than the verbal section. Having a difficult math section is considered sexist by many because "women are no good at math" (these are probably the same people who complain about state policies that require passing standardized tests racists because "minorities are no good at taking tests").
RTFA. The problem this is causing the industry is that half the population is not available. That is a huge brain drain, and can cause massive labor shortages in the next few years.
In reality of course, most software comes with disclaimers saying the company is not liable for such damages, so this whole issue is moot.
Yeah, thats it. Blame the victim. That always works in court.
"the creator himself did not intrude into anyone's system, the worm did."
And O.J. never stabbed anyone, his knife did. Give me a break. You are a defense lawyer's wet dream.
Besides, whining about inflated damages is just dumb. If you intentially destroy property actually worth lets say $10 million and you end up getting billed for $20 million, do you really have grounds for a complaint? You should never have destroyed it in the beginning.
"I would also like to point out that you are apparently ignorant of the fact that the topic had drifted by then so it was no longer about just the British program."
No it hadn't. My post, which you were responding to, was clearly talking about the British program, not a fictional US one. Whats more I have repeatedly referred to it as the "British program" and this is the first time you have attempted to claim we are talking about US programs. You are clearly wrong. If any group is secretly writing the lesson plans it would be British and international record labels and trade groups, not the RIAA. Shut up and go home.
Is this really that different from Twisted Sister not allowing the Braves to use "I Wanna Rock" to introduce John Rocker? Or what if Pink Floyd wanted to stop a neo-Nazi group from using "Run Like Hell" at one of their rallies? Do you believe that artists should be forced to allow the uncontrolled use of their hard work in contexts they disapprove of?
Now this can be an interesting topic. Copyrights being applied to work with a political nature. There are many different sides to this and an actual debate about it would be interesting. But the geniuses at the editing department submit a summary that is itself biased to the point where it is trying to prevent a balanced discussion (it even starts out "As most /.'ers know all to well...", meaning if you disagree you are not a true slashdotter). How hard would it be to instead use an objective summary (something along the lines of "Complaints arise over the use of copyrights in political campaigns"), and then leave the opinions for the comments?
That being said...
Hypothetical question, what if Sean Hannity wanted to make a film bashing Dean well beyond what is generally considered honest journalism and wanted to use some of your footage out of context? It would be one thing to allow the Wall Street Journal or Fox News to use it in a story about the former candidate, but you believe this will be just a load of crap featuring half-truths and outright lies. Would you let them use your work to support their accusations?
Nowhere to run on this.
Either you were ignorant of how the industry works or you were being disingenuous. Which one is it?
I suppose if they do a search on hotbot (or whatever still uses meta-tags) for "Immanuel Kant" and get in response pages with Cartman's mom getting pooed on, they will have found one to report. As meta tag abuse is only a problem if it is visible (meaning it makes it to the first few pages of search results), it doesn't really matter if some are hidden away and get missed.
" 2) Who is going to decide that a given page has incorrect meta-keyword information
3) Define strong relation to a web page
4) Define Excessive use of meta-keywords in HTML"
I don't know about in Germany, but here the courts are given the task of interpreting the law.
" 5) What about servers across national lines"
One would think this wouldn't affect them, but remember the Yahoo! Nazi auction case.
" 6) Does anyone really use meta-keywords other than spammers"
No. But this may be done under the hope that they could return to normal use if spammers are removed from the equation.
"Its not ironic, its just a coincidence."
Ok, that may have been more of a paraphrase than an actual quote, but the point remains valid.
Yeah, for many here on slashdot the closest they will get to philosophy will be watching a Star Trek episode. But many others have broader interests.
New? I would consider it a high point if someone submitted something which they had read.
The basis of putting something into a 'factory' and mass producing it is that it shouldn't require much in terms of creativity, it should be just a process of putting together the parts. If that is all a particular piece of software is, shouldn't it be easier, quicker, and cheaper to automate the development than to stick it in an assembly line type of thing?
Your ignorance of this just shows that your comment was based on preconceived bias against record companies and not on known facts.
I don't think the mod got it. Subtlety does not work well in slashdot posts.
Even if each trip up there is relatively cheap compared to sending up a new scope (or building a land based scope using advanced technology), the costs of keeping it up there indefinetely build up. There will come a point in the Hubble's life when it will go down for good.
Keeping Hubble up there would cost billions of dollars, plus the risk involved in sending astronauts up in an old shuttle fleet. Maybe you think thats trivial, but NASA has determined that they have better uses of that money.
The government (like any business or individual) has to make what we call decisions about what to spend their budget on. Some things get funded, some don't. Deal with it.
And don't give me any crap about this being about 'science'. To think that is either naive or disingenuous. Imagine if a similar situation happened in another field. What if a biologist's request to expand research on the genome of a field mouse was denied so funds could instead focus on working on another animal? Clearly this research is just as important, if not more important, than staring at celestial bodies millions of light years away. Would there be mass protests? Would millions of citizens write angry letters to their congressmen demanding them to add more funding to this program? Would ACs rush to /. to write angry posts denouncing anyone suggesting that this may be the correct path? I think not.
We all know what is really fueling the "Save the Hubble" movement. Its an emotional connection to something that gives us pretty pictures of something we have long associated with superstition and religion. Support saving the Hubble all you want, just be honest enough to admit you are not doing it in the name of science.
Oh how I love slashdot.
The Hubble is done. Deal with it. If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one.
Out of curiousity, do get always get upset when lectures are "one-sided"? For instance, do you cry fowl when History lessons "indoctrinate" the kids that the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, communism, and nazism are bad things? After all, I don't recall a neo-nazi coming to class one day and giving us his side when we were in school. If 'one-sided biased' lectures are really so bad certaintly representatives from all movements outside of the mainstream, not just those you personally agree with, should have their say, right? I suppose that is a valid point of view, just not one I nor most of the population would support. But tell you what, I'll give you a chance to defend it before I dismiss it.