Sorry I'm not going to play your game. You deliberately misconstrue what is said and then rail against it
What have I misconstrued? You're the one who went off on random rants about sexism against men, and railed against imaginary arguments that were not made.
apparently unable to logically address what is said to you,
Again, I absolutely addressed your arguments logically. You appear to be the one with the logic problem, as you are not willing to put up a substantive argument. In fact, you appear to be threatened by reason, because you scurry away as soon as your obviously flawed arguments are questioned.
Welcome to the touchy-feely generation. Political Correctness has fscked up a lot of things thankfully not comp.sci. yet. Won't it be fabulous when some girl gets into a course that twenty better qualified males should have been offered.
What the fuck are you talking about? We're hardly living in a "politically correct" generation, quote the opposite.
Also, who said anything about letting less qualified females into courses ahead of better qualified males? Neither the linked article or the commentary here mentions anything of the sort. The real problem is that less qualified males are getting into these courses ahead of better qualified females because of misogyny and gender imbalance in the field. This threatens the less-qualified males, because they might have more competition and compete on merit, rather than privilege.
What's hilarious is that the real "touchy-feely" ones are the males who react like having women enter the field is a sexist sleight against them, some kind of conspiracy against men. Talk about acting the victim.
Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico, commented that 'Unfortunately, it's technically not possible to completely block this stuff.
Why is it unfortunate? Isn't it a good thing that content can't be arbitrarily blocked? If it could it would assist the goals of totalitarian regimes and those who are against freedom of speech.
I've drawn the logical conclusion from your prior comments. If you don't like that then that's your problem
No you haven't. You've drawn emotional illogical conclusions that have nothing to do with my comments. How is it logical to extrapolate that encouraging women and addressing gender bias is the same thing as being sexist against men?
The school system has utterly failed boys and yet we still hear how it is girls that need the special help - that and your comments are what is "Utter horseshit".
Who said anything about "special help"? Once again, you're just making up stuff that hasn't been said. Males are also encouraged to do courses like Computer Science. How is giving females the same encouragement "special treatment"? How is not excluding them "special treatment"? Males don't have this problem of institutional bias against them.
Your attitude is actually a fine example of the problem here - as it is quite typical of people in the computing field: obnoxious and narrow-minded. Socially unaware. Reactionary and hostile. Arrogant.
I wonder whether you'd feel the same way about it being a different group that was being excluded. For example, if Asian people were being discriminated against in computer-related fields? Would you then claim it was horribly racist against Caucasians to be supporting their participation?
Uh huh... why we would have resolved the question of P==NP by now if only there had been better gender balance. What twaddle.
Except I didn't say that. But thanks for making a strawman up.
In other words you don't know. Well there aren't in any school I know of - but go ahead and provide some examples.
Well, if you read the rest of the comments on this story, people have actually provided links to such programs. So, just because you don't know, you assume they don't exist?
Except there won't be any male nurses to fill that demand since they won't have been encrouaged to see that as an option.
Except that they are being encouraged to see that as an option.
Oh wait... I see... a generation or so later the number of male nurses will fill the gap. So let's fix things for girls now, with the same special programs and encouragements of the last two or three decades, continue to ignore boys for the next generation or two and then things will even out? What amazing misandry.
Utter horseshit. The idea is to fix it once and for all. Again, you are completely putting words into my mouth in order to knock down strawmen.
The idea is to open the market for all professions to both genders and remove historical gender biases and discrimination.
I don;t see why you think it's so bad to be encouraging people to consider Computer Science as a field of study. Nobody said anything about discouraging males. The idea is to find the broadest talent pool. If you let sexism reign, then you cut off 50% of the potential talent, and possibly turn away the best people.
Because gender imbalance in a field is damaging to that field. Computing in general, and Computer Science in particular has suffered enormously because of rampant gender bias.
Are there also high school programs designed to up the ratio of males in nursing?
I would not be surprised if there were. Either way, even in nursing, the gender imbalance is nowhere near that of CS. And fixing the gender bias in CS will naturally have an impact on the female-biased professions. Women who might have been pigeon-holed into nursing might discover their talents in another field, thus increasing demand for male nurses. Also, men who may have been pushed into computing because of gender bias might end up in a profession they are more suited to.
... and they'll only hear it above the din of Google's grand pronouncements if we all scream it out loud, long, and often.
This is wrong on at least a couple of levels.
Firstly, people don't listen to you if you scream loudly. They just dismiss you as a crazy person.
Secondly, the average person has no idea of the latest thing Google has announced, and has no empathy or concern for Google as an entity. They just know that Google is how you search the interwebs to find the Facebook login page.
Because battery technology hasn't developed as quickly as the electronic devices they power, a greater and greater percentage of the volume of these devices is taken up by the batteries needed to keep them running.
As they say, [citation needed].
I don't know about the author, but the devices I use seem to have less of their volume taken up by batteries, yet still get better battery life. Compare a 2010 Macbook Air or Macbook Pro to a Powerbook 100. Or in one of my hobbies, electric powered radio-controlled aircraft, in the days of Ni-Cad batteries, they barely used to get off the ground because of the enormous, heavy batteries. In comparison, today's Lithium-Polymer powered craft have much smaller and lighter batteries, yet get more power.
This is even worse -- it means that Caps Lock won't engage when I hit the key normally, even intentionally
Whether you think it's worse or not doesn't really matter. I was simply disproving the claim that the "ancient IBM keyboards" are about the only ones that have protection against accidental caps-lock activation.
It means I can't rely on muscle memory but have to think about what I'm doing -- just to press a key.
But if you got used to the keyboard, you wouldn't have to think about it, so it would be programmed into your muscle memory.
Preventing accidents shouldn't come at the price of impeding correct behavior.
What makes your behavior "correct"? That's like saying countries where people drive on a different side of the road are wrong. It's not wrong, it's just different.
And delay-sensitive interfaces inherently invite errors.
[citation needed]
What's "inherent" about delay-sensitive interfaces that they increase errors? They frequently avoid errors. For example, power-off buttons that you need to hold down for a few seconds avoid accidental loss of data by bumping the power switch. Sensors of various different types avoid errors by not responding to minor activations.
Also, I've seen far more errors caused by accidentally engaging caps-lock than accidentally not engaging it.
If Orson Welles doesn't crawl out of his grave and strangle this arrogant, money-grubbing motherfucker with his own intestines, then at least we finally know that the dead are *truly* and *forever* gone.
We know a remote farm in Lincolnshire, where Mrs. Buckley lives; every July, peas grow there...
Why? That doesn't make any sense. Sorry.
There's no known way of saying an English sentence in which you begin a sentence with 'in' and emphasize it. Get me a jury and show me how you can say "in July", and I'll go down on you. That's just idiotic, if you'll forgive my saying so. That's just stupid, "in July"; I'd love to know how you emphasize 'in' in "In July"...impossible! Meaningless!
"ancient" IBM keyboards (like the IBM 1391411 I'm typing this on) are about the only ones that doesn't have any "problem" with capslock (hitting capslock by accident),
Hardly. Every Apple keyboard and laptop made recently (that's millions upon millions of keyboards) has protection against accidental capslock activation - you have to hold the key down briefly, it won't activate with just a tap.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I'm not going to play your game. You deliberately misconstrue what is said and then rail against it
What have I misconstrued? You're the one who went off on random rants about sexism against men, and railed against imaginary arguments that were not made.
apparently unable to logically address what is said to you,
Again, I absolutely addressed your arguments logically. You appear to be the one with the logic problem, as you are not willing to put up a substantive argument. In fact, you appear to be threatened by reason, because you scurry away as soon as your obviously flawed arguments are questioned.
Okay, if Web 1.0 was Sales, 2.0 was Sharing, one candidate for 3.0 is Walled Garden & Censorship, and I speculate that 4.0 will be a Privacy Revolt.
How about a revolt against the inane idea that the web has version numbers? Or that the web as a whole even has some sort of overarching narrative?
Welcome to the touchy-feely generation. Political Correctness has fscked up a lot of things thankfully not comp.sci. yet. Won't it be fabulous when some girl gets into a course that twenty better qualified males should have been offered.
What the fuck are you talking about? We're hardly living in a "politically correct" generation, quote the opposite.
Also, who said anything about letting less qualified females into courses ahead of better qualified males? Neither the linked article or the commentary here mentions anything of the sort. The real problem is that less qualified males are getting into these courses ahead of better qualified females because of misogyny and gender imbalance in the field. This threatens the less-qualified males, because they might have more competition and compete on merit, rather than privilege.
What's hilarious is that the real "touchy-feely" ones are the males who react like having women enter the field is a sexist sleight against them, some kind of conspiracy against men. Talk about acting the victim.
Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico, commented that 'Unfortunately, it's technically not possible to completely block this stuff.
Why is it unfortunate? Isn't it a good thing that content can't be arbitrarily blocked? If it could it would assist the goals of totalitarian regimes and those who are against freedom of speech.
I've drawn the logical conclusion from your prior comments. If you don't like that then that's your problem
No you haven't. You've drawn emotional illogical conclusions that have nothing to do with my comments. How is it logical to extrapolate that encouraging women and addressing gender bias is the same thing as being sexist against men?
The school system has utterly failed boys and yet we still hear how it is girls that need the special help - that and your comments are what is "Utter horseshit".
Who said anything about "special help"? Once again, you're just making up stuff that hasn't been said. Males are also encouraged to do courses like Computer Science. How is giving females the same encouragement "special treatment"? How is not excluding them "special treatment"? Males don't have this problem of institutional bias against them.
Your attitude is actually a fine example of the problem here - as it is quite typical of people in the computing field: obnoxious and narrow-minded. Socially unaware. Reactionary and hostile. Arrogant.
I wonder whether you'd feel the same way about it being a different group that was being excluded. For example, if Asian people were being discriminated against in computer-related fields? Would you then claim it was horribly racist against Caucasians to be supporting their participation?
Uh huh... why we would have resolved the question of P==NP by now if only there had been better gender balance. What twaddle.
Except I didn't say that. But thanks for making a strawman up.
In other words you don't know. Well there aren't in any school I know of - but go ahead and provide some examples.
Well, if you read the rest of the comments on this story, people have actually provided links to such programs. So, just because you don't know, you assume they don't exist?
Except there won't be any male nurses to fill that demand since they won't have been encrouaged to see that as an option.
Except that they are being encouraged to see that as an option.
Oh wait... I see... a generation or so later the number of male nurses will fill the gap. So let's fix things for girls now, with the same special programs and encouragements of the last two or three decades, continue to ignore boys for the next generation or two and then things will even out? What amazing misandry.
Utter horseshit. The idea is to fix it once and for all. Again, you are completely putting words into my mouth in order to knock down strawmen.
The idea is to open the market for all professions to both genders and remove historical gender biases and discrimination.
I don;t see why you think it's so bad to be encouraging people to consider Computer Science as a field of study. Nobody said anything about discouraging males. The idea is to find the broadest talent pool. If you let sexism reign, then you cut off 50% of the potential talent, and possibly turn away the best people.
Why does it seem that "gender equality" only a one way street?
It's not. It works both ways. More women in Computer Science necessarily means more men in other professions. Supply and demand, and all that.
Why is that even considered an important issue?
Because gender imbalance in a field is damaging to that field. Computing in general, and Computer Science in particular has suffered enormously because of rampant gender bias.
Are there also high school programs designed to up the ratio of males in nursing?
I would not be surprised if there were. Either way, even in nursing, the gender imbalance is nowhere near that of CS. And fixing the gender bias in CS will naturally have an impact on the female-biased professions. Women who might have been pigeon-holed into nursing might discover their talents in another field, thus increasing demand for male nurses. Also, men who may have been pushed into computing because of gender bias might end up in a profession they are more suited to.
... and they'll only hear it above the din of Google's grand pronouncements if we all scream it out loud, long, and often.
This is wrong on at least a couple of levels.
Firstly, people don't listen to you if you scream loudly. They just dismiss you as a crazy person.
Secondly, the average person has no idea of the latest thing Google has announced, and has no empathy or concern for Google as an entity. They just know that Google is how you search the interwebs to find the Facebook login page.
Root Mean Square...or Richard M. Stallman?
How original! We've never heard that one on slashdot before.
Richard Stallman is also concerned about the ubiquity of showers and electric razors, and deeply worried that either may be nearby.
Ron Paul, Julian Assange, cows, hockey, Vladimir Putin and PayPal?
I'm sorry, that's one orgy I don't want to be invited to.
Because battery technology hasn't developed as quickly as the electronic devices they power, a greater and greater percentage of the volume of these devices is taken up by the batteries needed to keep them running.
As they say, [citation needed].
I don't know about the author, but the devices I use seem to have less of their volume taken up by batteries, yet still get better battery life. Compare a 2010 Macbook Air or Macbook Pro to a Powerbook 100. Or in one of my hobbies, electric powered radio-controlled aircraft, in the days of Ni-Cad batteries, they barely used to get off the ground because of the enormous, heavy batteries. In comparison, today's Lithium-Polymer powered craft have much smaller and lighter batteries, yet get more power.
Actually quite basic math there too. Why did solving this come with an award?
Well, the "award" is a Google netbook. Which is hardly a prize. The hardware is barely worth the effort it takes to maintain.
This is even worse -- it means that Caps Lock won't engage when I hit the key normally, even intentionally
Whether you think it's worse or not doesn't really matter. I was simply disproving the claim that the "ancient IBM keyboards" are about the only ones that have protection against accidental caps-lock activation.
It means I can't rely on muscle memory but have to think about what I'm doing -- just to press a key.
But if you got used to the keyboard, you wouldn't have to think about it, so it would be programmed into your muscle memory.
Preventing accidents shouldn't come at the price of impeding correct behavior.
What makes your behavior "correct"? That's like saying countries where people drive on a different side of the road are wrong. It's not wrong, it's just different.
And delay-sensitive interfaces inherently invite errors.
[citation needed]
What's "inherent" about delay-sensitive interfaces that they increase errors? They frequently avoid errors. For example, power-off buttons that you need to hold down for a few seconds avoid accidental loss of data by bumping the power switch. Sensors of various different types avoid errors by not responding to minor activations.
Also, I've seen far more errors caused by accidentally engaging caps-lock than accidentally not engaging it.
And we need to perfect the technology so that Zoidberg isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.
Um, isn't Zoidberg supposed to be annoying?
Once all the original actors die, he can release Christmas specials every year for as long as he wants with the original cast and no complaints.
No, I'm certain there would still be complaints.
If Orson Welles doesn't crawl out of his grave and strangle this arrogant, money-grubbing motherfucker with his own intestines, then at least we finally know that the dead are *truly* and *forever* gone.
We know a remote farm in Lincolnshire, where Mrs. Buckley lives; every July, peas grow there...
Why? That doesn't make any sense. Sorry.
There's no known way of saying an English sentence in which you begin a sentence with 'in' and emphasize it. Get me a jury and show me how you can say "in July", and I'll go down on you. That's just idiotic, if you'll forgive my saying so. That's just stupid, "in July"; I'd love to know how you emphasize 'in' in "In July"...impossible! Meaningless!
- Orson Welles, frozen peas commercial
"ancient" IBM keyboards (like the IBM 1391411 I'm typing this on) are about the only ones that doesn't have any "problem" with capslock (hitting capslock by accident),
Hardly. Every Apple keyboard and laptop made recently (that's millions upon millions of keyboards) has protection against accidental capslock activation - you have to hold the key down briefly, it won't activate with just a tap.
The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity
Maybe not, but perhaps there should be CAPITAL punishment for stupidity?
Really? Ageism? Most people I know moved out of college and got a job "in the real world" by 23
That doesn't make one a man. Most 23 year olds haven't reached emotional or intellectual maturity.
Now we can identify the truly stupid people by their fake Rolex and their false sense of well-being.
It didn't say the Rolexes were fake, only the prescriptions.
The FBI believes that one third of the world's spam messages are being generated by one 23-year-old Russian man
Congratulations to Oleg Nikolaenko for achieving so much at such a young age!
Unfortunately, the article is inaccurate. He's not a man yet, he's only 23.
Computers that run "non-approved" Operating Systems such as Linux won't be actively showing the tell-tale signatures of known infections,
That doesn't matter to the government inspectors who come to your house to see what OSes you are running.
On the bright side, I won a copy of OS/2 for stumping the speaker!
Are you sure that wasn't your punishment?