Or, it could be, that this is complete nonsense:
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

The entire field had the same bump. It wasn't just women. The percentage of women in the field has never risen above about 35%
I'd argue that's when the field was new and exciting. Then it tapered off and remained stable until the internet bubble... and tapered off again.

I think that, if anything, this shows women are savvy. They saw a new tech, took advantage of it. After the industry became less flashy, and the best jobs were harder to get they moved on. Then when the realities of the industry started to sink in and the industry collapsed they again left.

I don't think that was ever promised. Embryonic stem cells were seen as very promising for research and possibly treatment.
There's been one notable success:
http://healthland.time.com/201...

Other therapies have been significantly hampered by Government policy, but despite this some researchers went ahead. They found unforeseen obstacles like tumor formation, and unstable gene expression.

The problem with the Embryonic stem cell debate hasn't been the ethical concerns. Those are real, and should be address. But you need to know that there are those out there that used the debate not to fight Embryonic stem cell research, but to fight science itself. You don't want your tax dollars to go towards stem cell research? Fine, that's a reasonable request. But what happened was they not only pulled funding for Embryonic stem cell research, they also said that researcher couldn't receive ANY federal funding at all. For any other project. You were basically blacklisted if you even touched the topic. That had nothing to do with moral concerns, that was an attempt to use the governments muscle to kill the research entirely.

Embryonic Stem Cells had, and still have great medical promise. If your kid died from some disease, then a few years later research into stem cells lead them to some new drug that would have cured him, how would you have felt about the way this had been handled? Does it matter that they didn't find the cure? What's the next research they'll try to kill? Will it be the one that could have cured you?

...and they've also likely consulted with their lawyers and know what the inevitable SCOTUS decision will be. They have a very limited amount of time to demonstrate that they are not complicit in all of this and try to squeak out from under what could be potentially ruinous for their business model. If SCOTUS is overly broad in their ruling it could destroy Google/Facebook overnight.

Easy, give them a quote. Then let them know that doesn't include support.
I think any developers on slashdot could likewise quote them...
I'm going to say, if I like the charity and am willing to do them a favor: $100k up front, and another $50k on completion if it's relatively simple. Then another $50k per year for support. I can pass background checks and all that stuff.

Oh... so they want, for free, something that would cost at least $200k? And they think their free versions going to be even remotely be equivalent? It's like saying "Well, we could take the buss, but ferrari's are more comfortable. We can't afford a real ferrari so go get us some volunteers and have them custom build a Ferrari from the ground up so we can save money."

It's silly on its face... and if they can't figure that out, I think it's a clear sign how they'll handle the rest of the money they get. Run, don't walk away from that place. This is an important lesson for you not them.

I don't think it works that way.
The dongle has a key.
The site has a key.
depending on how this authentication is setup (I can't be bothered to check):
Both sides send each other a challenge, which combined with the time is calculated and sent. (i.e. try it at 5pm and you'll get a different answer than 10am)

Both results have to match as well as the users username and password.
So, for an attack to be successful, they'd have to breach the Dongle, the website and the user. At that point it's kind of irrelevant what security measures you took. I suspect that, if you had the opportunity to steal the users USB dongle, you could have took their cellphone as well.

Security that's so painful no-one uses it, is worthless. Security that makes small sacrifices technically to achieve broad adoption is a good thing. Google could make you drive out to California and sign a document stating you really are you in front of a notary. But no one would do that, and it would still be vulnerable to the same groups that could break this Dongle scheme.

You mean a serial port? I bet yours does and you didn't even know it.
And if it doesn't? http://www.amazon.com/USB-9-pi...

Yes:
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/122...
http://www.youngcons.com/texas...

All 3 of those were beaten with MATH as in, irrefutable proof that the camera was wrong and setup to intentionally give tickets to people that did not break the law. (unless the software itself is hopelessly flawed)
biatch

No they didn't. Not even remotely.

Not sure how many people here have used Lenovo phones, because I dont think any US carriers have them... But I had one on a BYOP deal for a while and it was a great phone. There seem to be very limitted choices for more rugged phones and the Lenovo I had was pretty much water proof, shock proof, and I got it for $200.

Back when I had a blackberry it was similarly rugged, though not waterproof. I could see this being a good thing. I could see a market for a Blackberry shaped android phone, that was tough and maybe came with some phone management enterprise software. Most of the enterprise software I've used from Android has been terrible.

Actually, I think you've hit the nail on the head. If calorie requirements were such a problem, they'd be actively seeking people who are intersex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

But, I suspect they are NOT a problem. One could easily fit enough food to last for years in a small enough space that the tradeoffs for picking a person based on the many other attributes that would be far more valuable than the limited space that food would take up.

Now if you want to feed that person fresh vegetables the whole way... ok... this might be a problem. But I think a balanced diet would be the least of their health concerns on this trip.

This is going to be great. I can't think of a single reply to this I could make that wouldn't start an immediate flame war other than the one I'm making, and that's only because it's totally off topic. And I think there's still a 50/50 chance it'll happen.

Yay! We can finally all figure out what the average weather inside teenagers pockets is! Woot!

The problem is, what is prior art? It's highly subjective and as such, the law is complicated.

There is no reforming the current system. We need an entirely new system. As is, an inventor has basically no change to win. If he invents something, lawyers find a way to subtly change it to produce it without permission. Likewise, if they have something patented they again get lawyers to find a way to change it and extend that patent into perpetuity.

Patents should be rare. Almost everything should be covered by short term copyright and trade secrets. Patents should only cover truly new and innovative tech. Smartphones are battery powered computers... there shouldn't be anything in them that's patentable. A new form of Fusion reactor? Ok... that's patent. I'd even propose that someone applying for a patent should have to get a court to approve the patent before it being granted.

Are you new to submitting? I've had a bunch make it to the front page... the mods Heavily modify your submission. To the point that, you might as well not even bother spending time typing it up nicely. I got concerned when they not only corrected things but wrote their own diatribes into the submission, made their own mistakes and such, and then attributed the post to me. So I don't submit nearly as much anymore.

If you're going to quote me with "Charliemopps writes" then it should be cut&paste. If you're altering it, Slashdot needs a different statement like "Submitted by..." etc...

I've owned quite a few Rifles in my time. Wood stocks are superior to composite in every category but 1. Composite is lighter.