I know many women in IT. And in other tech fields. Some of whom I've worked with. I've witnessed plenty of anti-female behavior. The most common I've seen is the assumption that anything a male suggests is intrinsically better than anything a female suggests. Next most common I've seen is paternalism. Rarely (but not never) do I see more overt forms (being in software development, calling a woman a "code c***" is an insult I've heard more than a few times). I know this is tame compared to what many people talk about.

And I know some people would consider this not sexism.

These subtle forms of sexism are probably just as bad. They may whisper, but the message they whisper is all the more effective for having been whispered - it's often easier to dismiss the obviously sexist comment than it is the clam, gentle voice "offering assistance".*

Sexism in IT and other tech fields is very real and all too common.

*I am NOT saying offering help is a bad thing. It is how it's done. However subtle, there is a difference between offering help to someone who is considered an equal and to someone who is considered an inferior.

The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs were "Buck Rogers"* (or "Captain Kirk" or whomever your favorite space hero is).

We don't have any insert-your-favorite-space-hero, now. At least not one who can broadly inspire the support those 3 programs had. And I don't foresee one any time soon.

There is no vision.

It's not about humans vs robots. Yes, you can do a lot of real science for less money using robots. But it's not just about science. It's also about humans being humans. Of course, just putting humans out there isn't enough.

There is no vision.

Instead, we have pork-politics.

---

*Supposedly, the Mercury astronauts said "No Buck Rogers, no bucks. And we're buck Rogers".

15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)

Also relevant, Artemis's 2 main space craft (the lander and the trans-Lunar transport) were designed around the Space Hab module, which was used to provide extended lab/work space for the space shuttle.

The cars in the fake city may be driverless, but the simulation is still being controlled by humans.

I can tell you from first hand experience, when the sim director is in a bad mood, the simulation gets very, very "interesting".

Looking at Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser page, they did receive some funding from NASA. As I recall, so did SpaceX. But as best I can determine, these funds were only a small portion of the overall project funding.

Unless the GAO (or a court) has issued (or soon will issue) an injunction to halt work, I don't see SpaceX (or Boeing) them stopping work.

While I like Sierra Nevada's design and overall plan better than SpaceX's, SpaceX has already delivered cargo to the ISS in version 1 of their space vehicle - more than once. That puts SpaceX well ahead of Sierra Nevada. Granted, the Atlas V Sierra Nevada plans to use to launch Dream Chaser has a much longer service record than the Falcon 9, I don't think that makes up for not having put at least a cargo version of Dream Chaser into actual service. Therefore, it seems very reasonable to choose SpaceX over Sierra Nevada.

I'm not sure about the status of Boeing's CTS-100, so I won't comment on Sierra Nevada vs Boeing.

Their ideology is that anything that gets in their way of accumulating more money is unfair.

Every time I've actually been through jury selection, part of the judge's introductory comments were "This is a court of law. The only things that will matter in your decision are the applicable laws and the evidence presented in this court."

Seems to be a very clear confirmation of your claim.

I don't know what's taught in today's US history classes, but even as recently as when my daughter took US history in both middle school and high school, the teachers and books were still teaching that the US was indirectly* founded through an armed revolution against the British Empire.

It that what really happened? Or were the founders of the US just a bunch of thugs with guns who wrote the Second Amendment as a way to give themselves the right to continue to be a bunch of thugs with guns?

Depending on your point of view, the revolution was either a pre-facto application of the Second Amendment, or the Second Amendment was a post-facto rationalization of criminal activities by a bunch of thugs.

--

*By indirectly, I mean that during the revolution, the newly self-declared independent, former colonies were a loose confederation, codified under the Articles of Confederation. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention, originally convened to amend the Articles of Confederation, wrote the Constitution, which codified the country as the United States.

Also, not new. I've visited several factories over the last 15 years. The systems on the production lines were all connected over ethernet running TCP/IP. Granted, 15 years ago, sensors and other small devices would be in clusters, each cluster connected to a (large) shoebox sized controller, but over time, as the networked controllers got smaller and less expensive, there were more controllers with fewer devices connected to each.

I suspect the plant Intel "installed" IoT into was just in need of a major update to its existing IoT (by whatever name it was called).

Why would that necessarily be so?

Even if the commander assumes the suspect is just a clueless idiot, there's still a chance he is a terrorist, so the same precautions are necessary.

In essence, expect the best while preparing for the worst.

Of course, whatever any commander did would involve risk. Redeploying officers involves risking opening other avenues of incursion. Calling for an evacuation risks tipping off the suspect. The suspect might be using some kind of "dead man switch", so couldn't use a sniper, even if one was available. And a shit-ton more potential risks and other issues.

If I was one who saw that man go the wrong way I would have assumed he was a terrorist.

Not knowing any details about the building layout and how the security officers were deployed, I can't say how I would have responded.

Afterward, I'd very strongly curse the bean counters for not providing for enough officers to have prevented the incident.

I have no doubt that both the security commander and the on-duty command will be raked over the coals for not having an officer there to stop the guy before trying to go the wrong way - or at least an officer closer enough to intercept and neutralize the guy before he could become a problem.

I'm NOT claiming the commanders weren't incompetent, only that the scope of responsibility should also include the people deciding what resources to make available. If the commanders were incompetent, they should be maximally punished. If the resource planners did not provide enough resources, they should be maximally punished. And if the blame is shared, so should the punishment.

The article seems to suggest the guy wasn't arrested, so maybe "Only in Australia" is appropriate.

In the US, I have no doubt he would have been arrested and charged with causing mass panic (whatever the legal terminology might be). And his iPad, cellphone and any other electronics confiscated. Even if the charges were dropped, it would be after very intensive interrogation and at least several days in a very high security jail cell.

And, of course, being put on the no-fly list. (which I'm sure he is, anyway)

At work, I am forced to use Windows 7. I keep my 5 "always open" applications pinned to the task bar and the 15 most used pinned to the top level of the start menu.

On my own PCs (laptop I carry and desktop at home), my XFCE desktop has a similar arrangement.

Anything else, I use the "instant search" feature like the parent post.

And like the GGP post, I also see 90% of my coworkers cover the desktop with launch icons.

In the case of one scientist, my girlfriend and I have seen. She (the scientist) was a guest of honor at a convention several years ago. My GF and I were at an adults-only party in the hotel's largest suite - which had a large hot tub. Around midnight, the scientist showed up. Trust us, she was very sexy. (More importantly, a damn good scientist in her field.)

Interesting. The same people in the US who want to deregulate business want unlimited ability to regulate individuals' private lives. what do you label them?