I agree. Everything sounded reasonable up until I got to that point, and then I had to ask how much of what was above wasn't at all correct I was surprised about his statement that one might expect a lower cancer level in space from the lack of carcinogenic chemicals, and was thinking about that when I got to this point, and then updated with "oh, he just doesn't know what he's talking about."

It's the same kind of "Mommy fix!" crying kids do now because they've been taught that hyperprotective parents will save them from anyone saying mean things, and kiss their boo-boo for them and give them lots of attention every time they cry.

So now we're expected to all be these professional victims' hyperprotective online parents. Boo-hoo, mommy fix!! and give 'em milk and cookies while we're at it.

I was a lot more sympathetic before I read Wu's own words on the subject, and followed the little arrows to where she was doing what when. And... you're absolutely right.

 

As far as I've paid attention (I read gamergate.community articles occasionally), one thing I've noticed is that GamerGate itself is very much about self-policing, and harrassment of *anyone* is roundly discouraged.

BTW great post up above (the one that got the +5, I'd give it +10).

"What rights do men have that woman do not?"

The right to be the huge majority of on-the-job deaths comes to mind.

Or maybe it looked to them like she had progressed in her career and even if she wasn't who they wanted last year, maybe this year she is, but when they got as far as checking out her in-person knowledge, it wasn't there yet. People are not static.

Or could be she seemed like a great candidate, good enough to give a second-third-fourth chance, but once they had her in person they could tell she was still the same person they didn't want before. (Sometimes a negative trait isn't outgrown or discarded, or gets worse.)

Could be all sorts of reasons, not just "HR not keeping track" let alone "too old". My guess, tho, given the lawsuit -- is that she seemed like a great candidate til they got a firsthand look at her attitude.

The Technican Element 3 test wasn't more difficult than the Novice Element 1 and 2 together, so Technican became the lowest license class when they stopped having to take Element 1.

The change to 13 WPM was in 1936, and was specifically to reduce the number of Amateur applicants. It was 10 WPM before that. ARRL asked for 12.5 WPM in their filing, FCC rounded the number because they felt it would be difficult to set 12.5 on the Instructograph and other equipment available for code practice at the time.

It was meant to keep otherwise-worthy hams out of the hobby. And then we let that requirement keep going for 60 years.

The Indianapolis cop episode was back in 2009. It wasn't the first time we've had intruders, and won't be the last, and if you have to reach back that long for an example, the situation can't be that bad. It had nothing to do with code rules or NGOs getting their operators licenses.

A satphone is less expensive than a trained HF operator. Iridium costs $30 per month and $0.89 per minute to call another Iridium phone. That's the over-the-counter rate. Government agencies get a better rate than that. And the phone costs $1100, again that's retail not the government rate, less than an HF rig with antenna and tower will cost any public agency to install.

You think it's a big deal to lobby against paid operators because there will be objections? How difficult do you think it was to reform the code regulations? Don't you think there were lots of opposing comments?

And you don't care about young people getting into Amateur Radio. That's non-survival thinking.

Fortunately, when the real hams go to get something done, folks like you aren't hard to fight, because you don't really do much other than whine and send in the occassional FCC comment. Do you know I even spoke in Iceland when I was lobbying against the code rules? Their IARU vote had the same power as that of the U.S., and half of the hams in the country came to see me. That's how you make real change.

Education *is* technology! We learn the best way to teach, and do that! Unfortunately, it's also politics, so we don't actually do that; we just handwave, pat ourselves on the back for having ideas, never implement most ideas, select the least-effective ones to implement so nothing changes, and then talk about how important education is.

It's not. The truth is the whole concept of "learning styles" is basically like the pudding model of the atom: it's cute, but it's not real.

Take me for instance: I'm more of an auditory or kinesthetic learner than a visual learner. Why? Because when I hear things, I turn sounds into images, feelings, colors, movement, ideas--my brain encodes sound in an explosive sensory manner. I process all of these things visually: emotions, movement, and abstract ideas are visual things--some don't have image data, but are still visual (yes I know, that makes no sense). Kinesthetic learning, as well, gives me a huge stream of visual information to work with; I don't remember the feeling, the movements, the actions, but rather what I saw and what I examined at every step.

Our different learning styles are essentially based in how effectively we can attend different information, which can be taught. I can teach you to pay attention to sounds, to visualize things people say, to visualize what you read, and to pay attention to the visual and auditory cues present when carrying out an instructive task. That, in turn, moves the information through the efficient memory model of visual memory, which is really how all humans learn best.

Auditory and kinesthetic learners are really good at accessing the extreme amounts of data in these tasks and converting them to visual data; they are, however, all visual learners. We can easily train all students to learn in these ways, thus reducing the problem to simply maximizing the structure and amount of information provided, which itself is a simple problem narrowing us down to exactly one particular style of learning adjusted for the crude speed of the learner (of course, the speed is based on how much information they have: they may learn new things slowly, but they'll expand on well-learned ideas quickly, so even slow learners can catch up).

Everyone wants simple answers, and everyone wants a romantic dream. In education, this comes down to ignoring the complexities of the human mind--don't think for a minute that the simple explanation above means simple implementation--and instead going with goofy theories that only require a modicum of effort--"show pictures, sound, and then have them do hands-on, and you'll easily teach all types of learners!" You're gonna need more sweat and blood invested than that; you have to teach these kids to learn, first and foremost.

"Windows 10 will launch in less than a week"

If it won't launch in less than a day, I would say scrap the whole idea.

My grandpas and grandmas would have had to start with quarks, except without atoms, they wouldn't have existed yet. Makes me doubt my own existence, now that I think about it, since humans are made largely of water. I has confusion.

Yep, there are a lot of flashing lights and beeps sending code in the computer world. I still hear phones using "... -- ..." to indicate an incoming SMS.

You're welcome. So you never licensed? It's not too late to join the fun.

OpenSSL has first-to-market advantage, and anyone who hasn't evaluated the quality differences will choose the simpler license. Plus there are other alternatives, like Amazon's new SSL-in-5000-lines which is also gift-licensed.

The time for OpenSSL to dual-license was when it was the only available alternative to entirely proprietary implementations. That might indeed have funded a quality improvement.

I don't know a thing about the quality of GnuTLS or the Amazon thing. I've seen enough of the insides of OpenSSL to know it's not pretty, but am not a crypto guy and this don't work on it.

Maintaining FIPS compliance did not make anything easier. It's essentially a prohibition on bug repair, as you have to recertify afterward. But the people who wanted FIPS were the only ones who were actually paying for someone to work on OpenSSL.

I don't think any of the other Free Software projects ever tried to be FIPS certified.

If you are one of the infringed parties, I'd be happy to talk with you about what your options are. bruce at perens dot com or +1 510-4PERENS (I'm not there today, but it will take a message). I am not a lawyer but I work with the good ones and can bring them into the conversation if necessary.