Where exactly do they plan on releasing these chimps at? NYC? These animals likely cannot be returned to the wild and would likely face certain death in the wilderness, or the urban jungle for that matter....
So they'd be in the same category as any number of mentally or physically impaired persons. We seem to have managed to recognize them as people just fine without feeling the need to just release them into the bushes.
Not that I agree with elevating chimps to personhood, but your argument doesn't really make much sense.
Its more accurate to say that apple only has 'premium' customers, while android customers (and android phones) run the complete range from bare bones to premium.
Bluntly put, the files are more robust than the registry's proven to be.
Database vs File Structure. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I don't dispute that the historical record suggest you may be right that the files are more robust... but then we never had a linux with a registry that was mainstream.
I attribute a lot of the problems with windows registry to the application culture -- of supporting mainstream consumer users.
[...] Assuming you know where the registry hives are located physically, many people have no clue.
The same people would be up shit creek with linux config files too when things go south.
Windows puts a lot of the stuff to watch for devices at the system level. For instance, the Samsung software for my phone, iTunes, the Citrix ICA client, all of that is system level and none of that is system-wide.
And if Linux was mainstream and samsung's phone tools and itunes were available it would need root to install. That's nothing to do with the system architecture of registry vs config files or proper separation of admin and user roles.
Agreed, of course, that Windows historically did not properly differentiate or enforce regular users vs system administrator although since Vista that's been more or less resolved.
On Windows it's unusual to see an installer that even gives you the option of choosing per-user vs. system-wide.
Right, in that the Windows model is that software installation in general is an administrative task. And I'd say there is a legitimate argument that their customer base (particularly businesses) that consider that a feature.
There is REALLY no difference between HKEY Current User/Software/appname and a "application-specific spot under a folder in your user home directory containing that information"
Note that the configuration of what programs the desktop environment will use to handle each file type is part of the desktop environment's configuration, not the application or the operating system.
Same with windows, except that the desktop environment is part of the operating system (and even that is becoming less true with core server installs).
That doesn't change the fact that the "desktop environment" whether its the desktop in windows or gnome it still needs to store all these settings somewhere.
nd the user's settings are part of the user's configuration, they don't exist at the system level.
Same with windows. HKLM and HKU are separate spaces for local machine settings, and user settings. HKU for user settings.
There are of course system-level default settings and application configuration for applications that've been installed system-wide that get read before user-specific settings and configuration.
HKLM for system wide settings.
As for user-specific widgets that start when hardware's plugged in, again that's handled by small daemons or the like that get started when the user logs in that monitor for such events.
Nope. You plug in a sata drive, or a USB device like a printer or scanner and the operating system establishes communication with it below the user level. And then again at the user level.
Linux isn't any different than windows here. (And even windows has this separation and abstraction visibly in place when you install terminal services.)
In one case you demand a study before anyone "dismisses" it as an inclination mismatch. In the other case, YOU dismiss it as an inclination mismatch, without a study, of course. But, generously, you'd have "no problem" with studying about the unfair treatment received by other sex in the other set of professions too.
You are reading more into my tone than REALLY exists. I "demanded" a study before we dismiss the issue in the former case because the OP insisted there was "no problem".
In the latter case, it seemed that you were asserting there was a problem, and seemed to be trying to suggest I might not see it as such. Whereas I think study is called for in this case too -- I didn't need to "demand" we study it, because you weren't demanding there was no problem.
Nor did I dismiss it as an inclination mismatch; I made one observation about hunter vs nurture nature of the genders; but at the same time, even without study I could say for certain that with nursing at least there was definitely a cultural/peer pressure problem keeping men away.
I refrained from speculating on causes for the lack of girls in math/comp sci although I have a few theories. Gender inclination is conceivable, but the 'geek' culture is blatantly mysoginist. While the OP however was asserting there was no problem.
Need I say more, or you understood your own double standards ?
In any case I'm led to the same course of action for either scenario; to do the "right thing" in both cases. So even if I have double standards they are not obstructing progress; and I'm open to the suggestion that I'm not perfect.:)
You are an old man (so am I). Check out some recent statistics.
Perhaps. My kids are both in primary school, and have both had least 1 male teacher so far and there's still a few years to go. I don't dispute the statistics though.
I would be interested in knowing what are your feelings about studying WHY there so few men in nursing, and primary school teaching.
I'd have no problem with that.
I'd be inclined to suspect women are drawn to careers involving young kids more. Day care, preschool, elementary, etc. There might be some element of a feminine preference to "nurture".
It would be interesting to study.
Unless this is a trick question already with a well known, scientifically accepted reason...
For nursing at least, there definitely seems to be a social stigma attached men to who choose that career. So peer pressure might be part of it too.
For primary school I don't know. I had 2 male teachers K-6. They were both very good teachers.
There have been many instances when I felt I was picking up the slack for fellow female soldiers that it put me and my unit in palpable danger.
I don't suggest that doesn't happen. But I would suggest you take a good hard look at the rest of the males in your unit and see if there is any dead weight.
Singling out dead weight is fine; but doing it based on gender is probably misogynistic. Not every woman in the military should be there; some of them are a detriment, but certainly not all of them. Meanwhile there's whole lot of useless fuckwit males in the service too.
Its too bad the army is busy lowering its standards for recruits, because that signals that its not about to get any better soon.
But I guess you're one of those who insist that a fire dept is being misogynistic becuase they refused to lower the psychical standards tests to increase the number of women on the force even though their biological differences would have made them unsuitable.
Perhaps if you read what I wrote elsewhere in the thread yesterday already already, you'd know that I fully support the same standards as men for women in the military, and I don't see why you'd conclude I'd have a different position for the fire department.
Strawman...
Only if you decide to equate femininsm with quotas and affirmative action.
What OP was arguing is that we dont need to have special programs to cater to one specific group
Only you said that. He didn't.
to try and correct some perceived inequality when there is no evidence hat there is any;
Looking at the rows upon rows of men in my upper division computing science would be evidence that something is out of whack. Not conclusive evidence, but its more than enough to justify the argument that something is up.
If anything OP is being more favorable to equality then you by saying that it's been achieved for this field.
Yes, he's saying that. But gives us no reason to believe it.
"Well there's nothing on the books about discriminating against them, so we're good."
Is not sufficient.
Now shoe me how many have special scholarships, and women only classes to garner their attention?
Now, that's the strawman. I don't think that's the right solution either.
you then argue yourself into a hole by suggesting that we need such programs while also stating we don't know if it even exists in the first place.
Not at all, I'm all for studying WHY there are few girls in computing science. Once we can answer that convincingly we can decide whether something needs to be "fixed".
I figure the problem is cultural and women are indoctrinated against pursuing careers in science in their teens or even before that.
I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
But pointing at college admissions books and saying women are free to apply so we're done, is just ignorant.
For example, if the NSA knows how to cryptoanalyze AES or PGP, the methods used getting into the hands of criminals would be bad for everyone.
Unless someone within the NSA realized there was a billion dollar payday if he sold those methods to certain criminals or countries.
In which case the public isn't safe and doesn't know it.
That's even worse.
Some things should be secret from the public, nuclear launch codes, names of spies, etc... but interent security affects all of us, and its not making anybody safer to try and hide a vulnerability there.
The NSA isn't magic. If the NSA can break AES, then anyone else might figure it out too.
Yeah, they sure are in horrifying and amazing ways. But I'm not aware that "inherently not being talented at or enjoying computer programming" is one of those ways.
Simply looking at their participation in computing science is not valid evidence.
You know where ignoring this is causing all types of havok? The military.
Oh, this is going nowhere fast.
Among other things, you are in a company of women on the front lines. Do you trust her to carry 100lbs of gear or to carry you if you get wounded?
I am not in favor of different standards for men and women in the military. If she can carry 100lbs of gear, she can carry 100lbs of gear. There are plenty of women who are stronger than I am.
So what if many female sailors get pregnant during voyages or during a tour of duty to get out of combat duty and go back home and collect benefits.
Not really sure what to say to THAT noise except that men have deliberately injured themselves to get out too. Pregnancy in that scenario is no different from any other sort of self-inflicted condition to avoid service. Men may not have THAT particular option, but there are plenty of others. Not to mention that pregnancy like injuries can also be accidental too.
So what if they affect unit cohesion, we have your fweelings on equality to consider.
Men have ditched service too.
Just because the system isn't producing the results you want, doesn't mean you get to make accusations of unfairness without even examining the dynamics at play.
Except that I was doing precisely what you want. I was suggesting we examine the dynamics at play.
You are the one going off spouting nonsense.
Go play social justic warrior elsewhere where you'd do less damage.
Like software development, you know... the actual topic at hand. What damage are you worried about?
Don't get it. So women don't want to program. That's fine.
Do we know that? I sure don't know that.
Maybe its because computer studies, and software engineering is hostile to women. Do I know that? No, I don't know that either.
But if its true its something I'd want to know and correct.
Once upon a time there were no female politicians. Is that because "women weren't interested in politics?" Turns out, no, that was not the reason at all.
Maybe the sciences are the same. Maybe its got nothing to do with science.
Feminism is an outdated concept by this point
The idea that women need to be treated as equals is outdated?
Affirmative action, quotas, and other ugly blunt tools to try to force equality are outdated.. and were never good tools in the first place. But to say feminism is outdated is just ignorant.
and frankly, it doesn't apply to software engineering.
And that's no less ignorant. Many guys said the same thing about women and politics.
It's both arrogant and stupid to think somehow its different this time. Maybe women are genetically predisposed to dislike software/engineering... but that's going to take some more evidence than "because you said so".
Thanks for the response; and you deserve the interesting mod. I don't think a lot of people, including myself, had really realized that.
I'm not quite ready to abandon my position though; on a few separate issues.
a) The expense of keeping them comfortable, even if not performing life saving measures is still relatively high. Its not a fair burden to put on people.
b) The family's suffering is needlessly prolonged even if the patient is oblivious and comfortable at that stage.
c) Late stage dementia isn't the only way to go. I've a "Great-Uncle-In-Law" of some sort who is going through late stage diabetes complications. (blindness, kidney failure, multiple amputations) along with age related hearing loss. Its tragic the family won't let him go -- his wife is "from the old country Catholic" and believes she will be judged a bad wife by her peers (other old country Catholics of her generation) if she doesn't do everything to keep him alive; Everyone else in the family wants him to die, including him; and even his wife wants him to die -- she just doesn't want it to be possible anyone would ever say it was 'her fault'. His mental faculties are intact, and he is aware of his life, and hates it -- I know he would request assisted suicide if he could. And my support of assisted suicide applies to cases like his as well.
So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job?
How is that relevant?
If you are bleeding to death on the side of the road, do you benefit from medical care? Should I be allowed to charge you "everything you have" to provide it? And if you "freely" agree to it, then why shouldn't I? Right?
As long as I'm not coercing you, and I'm absolutely not. You could say no. You could take your chances that another more reasonable medical provider could come along with a better price. You could shop around, try a provider in a different city or state even. Your not completely out of blood... you might make it.
And that is why your argument is fallacious. Like the guy by the side of the road, the person in a bad position who needs a job doesn't have the luxury to shop around.
Getting a job isn't like choosing which brand of cereal to buy; they aren't all lined up, and you just make a choice. It takes weeks, you have interview processes, if you pass on a job to hold out for something better it likely won't be there a week later if the better offer doesn't come along.
No its not as dire as bleeding by the side of the road, but unemployment is very stressful, and looking for a job is a full time job itself. Meanwhile the clock doesn't stop ticking just because you are looking for work. The rent or mortgages and bills are still due, the kids need to eat, the medical bills need to be paid, the car insurance, etc. Its not practical to cut these costs the day you lose your job, you can scale back a bit, but a lot of these expenses are relatively fixed unless to make major undesirable changes.
Meanwhile, your ability to "shop" for jobs grows increasingly limited; you can't easily afford to move while your out of work; further limiting the opportunities you can even chase.
You can sell your car, to stretch out your savings, and cut costs... but that in turn further reduces where you can apply for work.
[i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?
That's a fallacious argument too. A certain minimum standard of lifestyle (which yes, probably is in the top 2% relative to the rest of the world) is a prerequisite here just to secure odds of getting even a minimum wage job. I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years -- and yes, even at that level for entry level deep fryer or bun toaster operator we were very likely to pass over an applicant living out of his car or at a hostel of some sort, with no fixed address or phone number. We favored applicants with cars, clean and fresh and well dressed. As all these generally implied "stable", or "reliable" personality.
If someone were to reach the poverty lifestyle levels of the so-called 98% you refer to, they'd be all but unemployable except maybe as day labor on the very bottom rung of society, and paid low enough so as to ensure they would not ever improve their circumstances.
So, no, I don't think we want to let people reach that stage before we step in and lend them a hand.
Especially as corporations exploit this power imbalance deliberately. They know the poor are stuck, and will take what they can get, because they can't afford to move, and can't afford to hold out for something better; lest things get even worse. If they lose the house or car or phone or internet or stop doing laundry, showering, deoderizing, and all the other little western civilization lifestyle luxuries we take for granted they become all but completely unemployable, regardless of their skill set.
So yeah, I find it offensive that you want to let people lose that before you'll even consider helping them.
Unemployment for many people rapidly deteriorates into a situation for which negotiating for employment is about as one sided as the classic 'gun to the head' metaphor. Corporations know this, and abuse it. And yes, I find it offensive.
No, the most natural assignment is to not assign anything at all, but to take the bit pattern as what it is: A bit pattern.
You know of many computers that need to put the bit pattern 'address' of the memory cell containing the next cpu instruction to run, for each instruction?
Because without an ordinal assignment, there is no concept of "next", and the CPU has no way to "advance", no way to jump relative. Every single instruction would need the bit pattern of the next cell to load and execute.
Or we could assign an ordinal number to each cell in some logical natural way... gee I wonder what we'll come up with...
And when I answered that security updates are quite rare thing if you use an Operating System
I said "server updates". Where the operating system ends and applications begin is a fairly arbitrary distinction; most would probably would count any IIS related security updates on as Windows Server "operating system" updates, while one might not be so quick to call Apache or Tomcat security updates out as "Operating System" related. And in any case, Apache and Tomcat have both seen several security updates over the last decade; as has Zimbra.
Your are right that I also had to do more updates related to getting features and non-security related bug fixes, but even if we just looked at security related updates, it was not an uncommon event.
you changed the theme to feature requests (you need Webmail and smartphone sync
I mentioned those features, not so much to change the theme of the argument, but because the features I wanted were modern and public facing on the server, so more defects and security flaws are expected than they would be in more staid well established services.
Yes, I do according to security _advisories_ for my system which I check regularly.
I'm curious what mail server you run that goes 10 years without a security update and is simultaneously capable of shared calendar sync with a smartphone from 2010, or supports webmail using web browsers from this decade instead of Netscape and IE5.
I guess I could run your server, wouldn't have to update it much, or I could just turn it off and save the electricity. Or perhaps your server doesn't do anything useful to me.
I want a lot more features than a pop3 mailbox from 1997.
If YOUR server needs security updates more often - maybe it's executable has.exe extension?
I ~already~ said I was running zimbra community edition.
That was on CentOS since that was one of the officially supported platform (well RHEL). The gateway was Debian, because I generally prefer Debian.
But hey whatever, take shots at windows if it makes you feel special. I do have a windows 7 pro box as my main desktop.
An air gapped commodore 64 might be more secure, and there hasn't been a security advisory in over a decade... but it doesn't do anything useful for me either.:p
If you believe that anti-virus and security updates are really needed then you possibly believe that the program should have.exe extension to be executable. Throw away this belief.
The security updates are for the server itself. If you think its ok to run a mail server and not be paying attention to security updates. Well... "Throw away this beleif.":)
As for anti-virus; sure I can handily automatically strip out executable from anyone not on a white list I suppose.
After this your only problem will be spam.
99% of the mail hitting the server even. When I used to run a personal mail server, I ran two, an inbound gateway in one VM, and then the actual mail server in the other.
The gateway did all the public receiving, antivirus, spam scoring, etc.
If the public facing gateway got hacked or flooded with spam, or denial of serviced, or something else went side ways on it I liked the separation. While my actual mail continued to work. (at least for access, calendar, etc, uninterupted... it was just cleaner that way.)
Anyhow, I spent more time maintaining gateway (far more than the actual mail server), tuning it for spam, than it was worth.
And it's quite easy to fight.
No its not.
You just tell your important correspondents to include some keyword to header and tune your mail client to mark it as NOT SPAM.
Or I can just whitelist them. Same amount of work for me to tell them all some magic key, or just add them to a list. And far less work for them.
Every other mail is sorted by built-in spam filter of your client.
What? Like thunderbird? Or my smartphone? Yeah, no. I want the spam dealt with before my client software sees it, especially my smartphone.
And besides, spam is not the only problem left...
Idiots with SPF records that don't match what they are doing is still a problem. I can't count how many times some idiot would configure their SPF record to only authorize mail from their designated server, and then setup up their smartphone to pickup their mail via IMAP from the office, but send outgoing mail via Verizon Wireless SMTP...
Their problem right... not mine. Well, "everyone else still gets their mail".. so its "my problem", with my wierd personal mail server that's just doing what THEY specified it do with THEIR mail. I could just ignore SPF, but its actually pretty decent when its setup right.
Then there's the blackhole lists, if your IP is on one, its a pain in the ass. In my case, it was bad enough that I had outbound mail relay through the ISP for the majority of my mail. (If its going to gmail or hotmail or yahoo or comcast.net... My ISP can pull it off the wire if they want it anyway, and its not like anything I send to someone on gmail is truly private. So relaying through my ISP's mail server isn't any worse.
At the end of the day though, the biggest reason I dropped hosting my own mail -- I wanted push mail, calendar and contact sync with my phone. google's sync was seamless and free, and at the time, OSS solutions sucked ass (Zimbra community edition (what I was using at the time) didn't support mobile phones, you had to move into a paid product...). I honestly don't know if they've gotten better since then -- except I know the company itself has changed hands at least once... it was several years ago now.
In any case, it wasn't a huge amount of work, but what I had didn't do smartphones well, I had to upgrade Zimbra periodically for security updates, webclient browser support/updates, along with various bits on the gateway. It added up to a lot of time for something supporting just me and my wife's mailboxes.
Right now my personal domain is at outlook.com; i don't love it, but I don't hate it. The smartphone app isn't great, but its reliable, and calendar and contact sync all work. I picked outlook because it was free, and I already use google for search and maps, and figured I'd give someone else my email, google has enough on me as it is.
Anti-Spam, anti-virus, blacklists, security updates, and dealing with shit when it goes wrong?... and it only costs me a fiver to sign up for that grief?
Most real men have better things to do than administer a personal email server.
And to what end? When most of the personal email I get is from other people with gmail/hotmail/outlook/yahoo/or major ISP addresses... so the 'other half' of every conversation is just wide open anyway.
For most of us in that boat, we might as well just use gmail or whatever with imap and pgp or something with as many people as you can. (Makes the web client worthless... but if you can't read it on the web client, neither can google or anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Where exactly do they plan on releasing these chimps at? NYC? These animals likely cannot be returned to the wild and would likely face certain death in the wilderness, or the urban jungle for that matter....
So they'd be in the same category as any number of mentally or physically impaired persons. We seem to have managed to recognize them as people just fine without feeling the need to just release them into the bushes.
Not that I agree with elevating chimps to personhood, but your argument doesn't really make much sense.
Its more accurate to say that apple only has 'premium' customers, while android customers (and android phones) run the complete range from bare bones to premium.
Some of my android based tablets and phone are using browsers with a user agent that reports as an ipad
Can you clarify if that was something you set up yourself, or whether they are coming like that from the developer?
Read TFA. You'll be pleasantly surprised at what they actually plan to do vs what everyone assumes they are doing.
Of course, if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that they do in fact propose to burn it.
They simply plan to burn it 'at sea' instead of 'on land'.
Bluntly put, the files are more robust than the registry's proven to be.
Database vs File Structure. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I don't dispute that the historical record suggest you may be right that the files are more robust... but then we never had a linux with a registry that was mainstream.
I attribute a lot of the problems with windows registry to the application culture -- of supporting mainstream consumer users.
[...] Assuming you know where the registry hives are located physically, many people have no clue.
The same people would be up shit creek with linux config files too when things go south.
Windows puts a lot of the stuff to watch for devices at the system level. For instance, the Samsung software for my phone, iTunes, the Citrix ICA client, all of that is system level and none of that is system-wide.
And if Linux was mainstream and samsung's phone tools and itunes were available it would need root to install. That's nothing to do with the system architecture of registry vs config files or proper separation of admin and user roles.
Agreed, of course, that Windows historically did not properly differentiate or enforce regular users vs system administrator although since Vista that's been more or less resolved.
On Windows it's unusual to see an installer that even gives you the option of choosing per-user vs. system-wide.
Right, in that the Windows model is that software installation in general is an administrative task. And I'd say there is a legitimate argument that their customer base (particularly businesses) that consider that a feature.
There is REALLY no difference between HKEY Current User/Software/appname and a "application-specific spot under a folder in your user home directory containing that information"
Note that the configuration of what programs the desktop environment will use to handle each file type is part of the desktop environment's configuration, not the application or the operating system.
Same with windows, except that the desktop environment is part of the operating system (and even that is becoming less true with core server installs).
That doesn't change the fact that the "desktop environment" whether its the desktop in windows or gnome it still needs to store all these settings somewhere.
nd the user's settings are part of the user's configuration, they don't exist at the system level.
Same with windows. HKLM and HKU are separate spaces for local machine settings, and user settings. HKU for user settings.
There are of course system-level default settings and application configuration for applications that've been installed system-wide that get read before user-specific settings and configuration.
HKLM for system wide settings.
As for user-specific widgets that start when hardware's plugged in, again that's handled by small daemons or the like that get started when the user logs in that monitor for such events.
Nope. You plug in a sata drive, or a USB device like a printer or scanner and the operating system establishes communication with it below the user level. And then again at the user level.
Linux isn't any different than windows here. (And even windows has this separation and abstraction visibly in place when you install terminal services.)
In one case you demand a study before anyone "dismisses" it as an inclination mismatch. In the other case, YOU dismiss it as an inclination mismatch, without a study, of course. But, generously, you'd have "no problem" with studying about the unfair treatment received by other sex in the other set of professions too.
You are reading more into my tone than REALLY exists. I "demanded" a study before we dismiss the issue in the former case because the OP insisted there was "no problem".
In the latter case, it seemed that you were asserting there was a problem, and seemed to be trying to suggest I might not see it as such. Whereas I think study is called for in this case too -- I didn't need to "demand" we study it, because you weren't demanding there was no problem.
Nor did I dismiss it as an inclination mismatch; I made one observation about hunter vs nurture nature of the genders; but at the same time, even without study I could say for certain that with nursing at least there was definitely a cultural/peer pressure problem keeping men away.
I refrained from speculating on causes for the lack of girls in math/comp sci although I have a few theories. Gender inclination is conceivable, but the 'geek' culture is blatantly mysoginist. While the OP however was asserting there was no problem.
Need I say more, or you understood your own double standards ?
In any case I'm led to the same course of action for either scenario; to do the "right thing" in both cases. So even if I have double standards they are not obstructing progress; and I'm open to the suggestion that I'm not perfect. :)
You are an old man (so am I). Check out some recent statistics.
Perhaps. My kids are both in primary school, and have both had least 1 male teacher so far and there's still a few years to go. I don't dispute the statistics though.
I would be interested in knowing what are your feelings about studying WHY there so few men in nursing, and primary school teaching.
I'd have no problem with that.
I'd be inclined to suspect women are drawn to careers involving young kids more. Day care, preschool, elementary, etc. There might be some element of a feminine preference to "nurture".
It would be interesting to study.
Unless this is a trick question already with a well known, scientifically accepted reason...
For nursing at least, there definitely seems to be a social stigma attached men to who choose that career. So peer pressure might be part of it too.
For primary school I don't know. I had 2 male teachers K-6. They were both very good teachers.
For a different persecutive, please read this article by Helen Nearing: At The End Of A Good Life:
The dignity arises from the fact that he got to choose how he died.
There have been many instances when I felt I was picking up the slack for fellow female soldiers that it put me and my unit in palpable danger.
I don't suggest that doesn't happen. But I would suggest you take a good hard look at the rest of the males in your unit and see if there is any dead weight.
Singling out dead weight is fine; but doing it based on gender is probably misogynistic. Not every woman in the military should be there; some of them are a detriment, but certainly not all of them. Meanwhile there's whole lot of useless fuckwit males in the service too.
Its too bad the army is busy lowering its standards for recruits, because that signals that its not about to get any better soon.
But I guess you're one of those who insist that a fire dept is being misogynistic becuase they refused to lower the psychical standards tests to increase the number of women on the force even though their biological differences would have made them unsuitable.
Perhaps if you read what I wrote elsewhere in the thread yesterday already already, you'd know that I fully support the same standards as men for women in the military, and I don't see why you'd conclude I'd have a different position for the fire department.
Strawman...
Only if you decide to equate femininsm with quotas and affirmative action.
What OP was arguing is that we dont need to have special programs to cater to one specific group
Only you said that. He didn't.
to try and correct some perceived inequality when there is no evidence hat there is any;
Looking at the rows upon rows of men in my upper division computing science would be evidence that something is out of whack. Not conclusive evidence, but its more than enough to justify the argument that something is up.
If anything OP is being more favorable to equality then you by saying that it's been achieved for this field.
Yes, he's saying that. But gives us no reason to believe it.
"Well there's nothing on the books about discriminating against them, so we're good."
Is not sufficient.
Now shoe me how many have special scholarships, and women only classes to garner their attention?
Now, that's the strawman. I don't think that's the right solution either.
you then argue yourself into a hole by suggesting that we need such programs while also stating we don't know if it even exists in the first place.
Not at all, I'm all for studying WHY there are few girls in computing science. Once we can answer that convincingly we can decide whether something needs to be "fixed".
I figure the problem is cultural and women are indoctrinated against pursuing careers in science in their teens or even before that.
I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
But pointing at college admissions books and saying women are free to apply so we're done, is just ignorant.
For example, if the NSA knows how to cryptoanalyze AES or PGP, the methods used getting into the hands of criminals would be bad for everyone.
Unless someone within the NSA realized there was a billion dollar payday if he sold those methods to certain criminals or countries.
In which case the public isn't safe and doesn't know it.
That's even worse.
Some things should be secret from the public, nuclear launch codes, names of spies, etc... but interent security affects all of us, and its not making anybody safer to try and hide a vulnerability there.
The NSA isn't magic. If the NSA can break AES, then anyone else might figure it out too.
The genders are different.
Yeah, they sure are in horrifying and amazing ways. But I'm not aware that "inherently not being talented at or enjoying computer programming" is one of those ways.
Simply looking at their participation in computing science is not valid evidence.
You know where ignoring this is causing all types of havok? The military.
Oh, this is going nowhere fast.
Among other things, you are in a company of women on the front lines. Do you trust her to carry 100lbs of gear or to carry you if you get wounded?
I am not in favor of different standards for men and women in the military. If she can carry 100lbs of gear, she can carry 100lbs of gear. There are plenty of women who are stronger than I am.
So what if many female sailors get pregnant during voyages or during a tour of duty to get out of combat duty and go back home and collect benefits.
Not really sure what to say to THAT noise except that men have deliberately injured themselves to get out too. Pregnancy in that scenario is no different from any other sort of self-inflicted condition to avoid service. Men may not have THAT particular option, but there are plenty of others. Not to mention that pregnancy like injuries can also be accidental too.
So what if they affect unit cohesion, we have your fweelings on equality to consider.
Men have ditched service too.
Just because the system isn't producing the results you want, doesn't mean you get to make accusations of unfairness without even examining the dynamics at play.
Except that I was doing precisely what you want. I was suggesting we examine the dynamics at play.
You are the one going off spouting nonsense.
Go play social justic warrior elsewhere where you'd do less damage.
Like software development, you know... the actual topic at hand. What damage are you worried about?
Don't get it. So women don't want to program. That's fine.
Do we know that? I sure don't know that.
Maybe its because computer studies, and software engineering is hostile to women. Do I know that? No, I don't know that either.
But if its true its something I'd want to know and correct.
Once upon a time there were no female politicians. Is that because "women weren't interested in politics?" Turns out, no, that was not the reason at all.
Maybe the sciences are the same. Maybe its got nothing to do with science.
Feminism is an outdated concept by this point
The idea that women need to be treated as equals is outdated?
Affirmative action, quotas, and other ugly blunt tools to try to force equality are outdated.. and were never good tools in the first place. But to say feminism is outdated is just ignorant.
and frankly, it doesn't apply to software engineering.
And that's no less ignorant. Many guys said the same thing about women and politics.
It's both arrogant and stupid to think somehow its different this time. Maybe women are genetically predisposed to dislike software/engineering... but that's going to take some more evidence than "because you said so".
Which Mazda 3 would that be? Even a 2014 Mazda 3 s Touring with the bigger 2.5L is rated at 184hp.
Although yeah, 300HP in a new Ferrari is too low.
They do at least have 300HP cars in the historical line up... an early 90s 348 for example; was rated at 312
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari348.jpg
Rats. It won't QUITE fit on a microSD card...
Just exclude the star trek / star wars related entries; that should pare it down. And besides we all have it all committed to memory anyway right? :p
Thanks for the response; and you deserve the interesting mod. I don't think a lot of people, including myself, had really realized that.
I'm not quite ready to abandon my position though; on a few separate issues.
a) The expense of keeping them comfortable, even if not performing life saving measures is still relatively high. Its not a fair burden to put on people.
b) The family's suffering is needlessly prolonged even if the patient is oblivious and comfortable at that stage.
c) Late stage dementia isn't the only way to go. I've a "Great-Uncle-In-Law" of some sort who is going through late stage diabetes complications. (blindness, kidney failure, multiple amputations) along with age related hearing loss. Its tragic the family won't let him go -- his wife is "from the old country Catholic" and believes she will be judged a bad wife by her peers (other old country Catholics of her generation) if she doesn't do everything to keep him alive; Everyone else in the family wants him to die, including him; and even his wife wants him to die -- she just doesn't want it to be possible anyone would ever say it was 'her fault'. His mental faculties are intact, and he is aware of his life, and hates it -- I know he would request assisted suicide if he could. And my support of assisted suicide applies to cases like his as well.
Agreed on all points, but letting a loved one literally die of starvation while you watch is a cruel legal reality.
That you can't simply pick quick and painless death at that stage by some sort of overdose or lethal injection is inhumane.
So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job?
How is that relevant?
If you are bleeding to death on the side of the road, do you benefit from medical care? Should I be allowed to charge you "everything you have" to provide it? And if you "freely" agree to it, then why shouldn't I? Right?
As long as I'm not coercing you, and I'm absolutely not. You could say no. You could take your chances that another more reasonable medical provider could come along with a better price. You could shop around, try a provider in a different city or state even. Your not completely out of blood... you might make it.
And that is why your argument is fallacious. Like the guy by the side of the road, the person in a bad position who needs a job doesn't have the luxury to shop around.
Getting a job isn't like choosing which brand of cereal to buy; they aren't all lined up, and you just make a choice. It takes weeks, you have interview processes, if you pass on a job to hold out for something better it likely won't be there a week later if the better offer doesn't come along.
No its not as dire as bleeding by the side of the road, but unemployment is very stressful, and looking for a job is a full time job itself. Meanwhile the clock doesn't stop ticking just because you are looking for work. The rent or mortgages and bills are still due, the kids need to eat, the medical bills need to be paid, the car insurance, etc. Its not practical to cut these costs the day you lose your job, you can scale back a bit, but a lot of these expenses are relatively fixed unless to make major undesirable changes.
Meanwhile, your ability to "shop" for jobs grows increasingly limited; you can't easily afford to move while your out of work; further limiting the opportunities you can even chase.
You can sell your car, to stretch out your savings, and cut costs... but that in turn further reduces where you can apply for work.
[i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?
That's a fallacious argument too. A certain minimum standard of lifestyle (which yes, probably is in the top 2% relative to the rest of the world) is a prerequisite here just to secure odds of getting even a minimum wage job. I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years -- and yes, even at that level for entry level deep fryer or bun toaster operator we were very likely to pass over an applicant living out of his car or at a hostel of some sort, with no fixed address or phone number. We favored applicants with cars, clean and fresh and well dressed. As all these generally implied "stable", or "reliable" personality.
If someone were to reach the poverty lifestyle levels of the so-called 98% you refer to, they'd be all but unemployable except maybe as day labor on the very bottom rung of society, and paid low enough so as to ensure they would not ever improve their circumstances.
So, no, I don't think we want to let people reach that stage before we step in and lend them a hand.
Especially as corporations exploit this power imbalance deliberately. They know the poor are stuck, and will take what they can get, because they can't afford to move, and can't afford to hold out for something better; lest things get even worse. If they lose the house or car or phone or internet or stop doing laundry, showering, deoderizing, and all the other little western civilization lifestyle luxuries we take for granted they become all but completely unemployable, regardless of their skill set.
So yeah, I find it offensive that you want to let people lose that before you'll even consider helping them.
Unemployment for many people rapidly deteriorates into a situation for which negotiating for employment is about as one sided as the classic 'gun to the head' metaphor. Corporations know this, and abuse it. And yes, I find it offensive.
No, the most natural assignment is to not assign anything at all, but to take the bit pattern as what it is: A bit pattern.
You know of many computers that need to put the bit pattern 'address' of the memory cell containing the next cpu instruction to run, for each instruction?
Because without an ordinal assignment, there is no concept of "next", and the CPU has no way to "advance", no way to jump relative. Every single instruction would need the bit pattern of the next cell to load and execute.
Or we could assign an ordinal number to each cell in some logical natural way... gee I wonder what we'll come up with...
And when I answered that security updates are quite rare thing if you use an Operating System
I said "server updates". Where the operating system ends and applications begin is a fairly arbitrary distinction; most would probably would count any IIS related security updates on as Windows Server "operating system" updates, while one might not be so quick to call Apache or Tomcat security updates out as "Operating System" related. And in any case, Apache and Tomcat have both seen several security updates over the last decade; as has Zimbra.
Your are right that I also had to do more updates related to getting features and non-security related bug fixes, but even if we just looked at security related updates, it was not an uncommon event.
you changed the theme to feature requests (you need Webmail and smartphone sync
I mentioned those features, not so much to change the theme of the argument, but because the features I wanted were modern and public facing on the server, so more defects and security flaws are expected than they would be in more staid well established services.
Yes, I do according to security _advisories_ for my system which I check regularly.
I'm curious what mail server you run that goes 10 years without a security update and is simultaneously capable of shared calendar sync with a smartphone from 2010, or supports webmail using web browsers from this decade instead of Netscape and IE5.
I guess I could run your server, wouldn't have to update it much, or I could just turn it off and save the electricity. Or perhaps your server doesn't do anything useful to me.
I want a lot more features than a pop3 mailbox from 1997.
If YOUR server needs security updates more often - maybe it's executable has .exe extension?
I ~already~ said I was running zimbra community edition.
That was on CentOS since that was one of the officially supported platform (well RHEL). The gateway was Debian, because I generally prefer Debian.
But hey whatever, take shots at windows if it makes you feel special. I do have a windows 7 pro box as my main desktop.
An air gapped commodore 64 might be more secure, and there hasn't been a security advisory in over a decade... but it doesn't do anything useful for me either. :p
If you believe that anti-virus and security updates are really needed then you possibly believe that the program should have .exe extension to be executable. Throw away this belief.
The security updates are for the server itself. If you think its ok to run a mail server and not be paying attention to security updates. Well ... "Throw away this beleif." :)
As for anti-virus; sure I can handily automatically strip out executable from anyone not on a white list I suppose.
After this your only problem will be spam.
99% of the mail hitting the server even. When I used to run a personal mail server, I ran two, an inbound gateway in one VM, and then the actual mail server in the other.
The gateway did all the public receiving, antivirus, spam scoring, etc.
If the public facing gateway got hacked or flooded with spam, or denial of serviced, or something else went side ways on it I liked the separation. While my actual mail continued to work. (at least for access, calendar, etc, uninterupted... it was just cleaner that way.)
Anyhow, I spent more time maintaining gateway (far more than the actual mail server), tuning it for spam, than it was worth.
And it's quite easy to fight.
No its not.
You just tell your important correspondents to include some keyword to header and tune your mail client to mark it as NOT SPAM.
Or I can just whitelist them. Same amount of work for me to tell them all some magic key, or just add them to a list. And far less work for them.
Every other mail is sorted by built-in spam filter of your client.
What? Like thunderbird? Or my smartphone? Yeah, no. I want the spam dealt with before my client software sees it, especially my smartphone.
And besides, spam is not the only problem left...
Idiots with SPF records that don't match what they are doing is still a problem. I can't count how many times some idiot would configure their SPF record to only authorize mail from their designated server, and then setup up their smartphone to pickup their mail via IMAP from the office, but send outgoing mail via Verizon Wireless SMTP...
Their problem right... not mine. Well, "everyone else still gets their mail" .. so its "my problem", with my wierd personal mail server that's just doing what THEY specified it do with THEIR mail. I could just ignore SPF, but its actually pretty decent when its setup right.
Then there's the blackhole lists, if your IP is on one, its a pain in the ass. In my case, it was bad enough that I had outbound mail relay through the ISP for the majority of my mail. (If its going to gmail or hotmail or yahoo or comcast.net ... My ISP can pull it off the wire if they want it anyway, and its not like anything I send to someone on gmail is truly private. So relaying through my ISP's mail server isn't any worse.
At the end of the day though, the biggest reason I dropped hosting my own mail -- I wanted push mail, calendar and contact sync with my phone. google's sync was seamless and free, and at the time, OSS solutions sucked ass (Zimbra community edition (what I was using at the time) didn't support mobile phones, you had to move into a paid product...). I honestly don't know if they've gotten better since then -- except I know the company itself has changed hands at least once... it was several years ago now.
In any case, it wasn't a huge amount of work, but what I had didn't do smartphones well, I had to upgrade Zimbra periodically for security updates, webclient browser support/updates, along with various bits on the gateway. It added up to a lot of time for something supporting just me and my wife's mailboxes.
Right now my personal domain is at outlook.com; i don't love it, but I don't hate it. The smartphone app isn't great, but its reliable, and calendar and contact sync all work. I picked outlook because it was free, and I already use google for search and maps, and figured I'd give someone else my email, google has enough on me as it is.
Real men host their mail themselves.
Anti-Spam, anti-virus, blacklists, security updates, and dealing with shit when it goes wrong? ... and it only costs me a fiver to sign up for that grief?
Most real men have better things to do than administer a personal email server.
And to what end? When most of the personal email I get is from other people with gmail/hotmail/outlook/yahoo/or major ISP addresses... so the 'other half' of every conversation is just wide open anyway.
For most of us in that boat, we might as well just use gmail or whatever with imap and pgp or something with as many people as you can. (Makes the web client worthless... but if you can't read it on the web client, neither can google or anyone else.