Half the juriors were WOMEN. And ALL of the Asian juriors voted against her.

When you assume every women who loses a case is because of "male domination", then nobody takes you seriously when you have an actual case of discrimination.

Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership. If they can be this biased toward their agenda even when the facts are obviously to the contrary, they can't be trusted to report on anything.

"Ellen Pao gender-bias lawsuit is a setback for women"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025377...

Written by a female ex-CEO.

In a nutshell, the case is obviously frivolous, and if it had succeeded it would have been another barrier for women in the industry because companies would see a female applicant and go, "Is she worth the risk?"

Just because there's a way to scan papers (to help you trick the system) doesn't mean everyone is going to use it. The smart ones will, but that doesn't mean plenty of stupid people won't.

If tool can't stop every bad guy doesn't mean it's useless. Even a professional will miss some. It's about reducing the numbers that get through.

Additionally, many emergencies have something wrong with the plane. Not all, like a misreported flight instrument sending you into the ocean... but clearly, there are differences between a healthy plane descending rapidly, and an engine exploding (engine temp sensors high or dead, fluid loss) and the same resulting loss of altitude. The drop is the same, but the instruments are wildly different.

Rhymetime With Eminem - How do you rhyme with the word orange?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think programmers should focus on making code that "isn't slow" more than they should focus on "is fast." Focus on not making stupid mistakes like running higher-order algorithms than necessary (ala using a for loop to search for a key when you could have been using a dictionary).

If you focus on fast, you should definitely do a profile-first-optimize-last approach so you're actually optimizing code that the computer spends most of it's time running.

If you're optimizing fringe functions, then it better be for a pet project and "because I want to." Because otherwise you'll be sacrificing maintenance and introducing bugs for something that isn't even affecting the user.

"Why?" is the goto card for people who don't achieve anything.

The things you learn re-inventing the wheel can be applied in various parts of your future projects.

It's like asking why solve a math problem? Obviously, to learn how to do math for the chance that you see a problem that you DON'T have an easy answer already available. Hell, that's what an entire engineering degree is. It's not "can you solve problem X" because problem X will almost never occur in real life in an isolated environment. The purpose is "can you solve these kinds of problems." And how do you learn to solve problems? By looking at ones people have already solved.

Here's a thought. A modern car can tell the difference between driving and a jackass about to rear-end someone.

Can't we train some neural nets / other machine learning with flight data on two sets of data. One, emergency maneuvers, and two, with suicides. There is very likely a large difference in the mindset and controls influenced by that mindset between an emergency manuever and a suicide.

If a suicide is detected, at the very least POP the lock on the cockpit so the crew can do something about it. If it's an emergency landing but NOT terrorism, this won't be a problem. The only problem left is when pilot-is-crashing is falsely flagged, AND there are terrorists outside. But depending on how strong the correlation is, this might be an impossible scenario. The point is, we don't know until we actually try and run the numbers.

"Hey, babe, can you get me a soda?"
"Yeah."
"GOTCHA BITCH!" ::SLAM::

I actually agree, but I couldn't resist.

We're talking about probabilities here. We don't need to stop everyone, we need to make people less likely to do it.

Putting a second guy in a room with you absolutely makes you more aware of your legal and moral consequences. Even if they're your best friend. They don't want you killing yourself, or everyone on a plane. It prevents your mind from wandering into territory you know you shouldn't be in. We've all been in situations where we were thinking weird things and then someone came in and we suddenly realized how strange our thought-process was.

Putting a second guy in a room (and they can't be locked out because they also have keys) means you have to now outsmart and overpower a human being to do your craziness. It also means that if they notice you STARTING to get the point of crazy, they can DEFUSE IT before it becomes your urge to actually smash into a mountain.

We don't need a bunch of linebackers in a cockpit, but the fact that one pilot can easily lock out another pilot is pretty damned stupid if one of the pilots is the problem. And if you're worried about "the bad pilot getting back in" that's what the rest of the crew is force. A mile high gang bang.

>Any security measure will have a gap.

Except you know... another equally strong guy sitting next to you, with the same keys as you, and increasingly suspicious as to why you keep sweating and talking about Valhalla.

So in otherwords, nothing is going to change and this is just a feel good measure to make bitter women happy.

While I think they're unprofessional, but to call them "sexist" is diluting the word to mean "anything you don't like."

I wonder how hard it would be to fork a file manager to add the functionality you are looking for. Someone else mentioned various filtering options.

I'm very much a fan of "it's easier to make the tool you need than it is to convince someone to make it for you."--even if it would be easier for someone to modify their own project than you having to learn all specifics, they're normally so resistant to ideas that it's almost impossible to get a dev to care about a feature you do.

All current large GUI changes are not to make our lives easier, it's to bring in new people who can't be bothered to learn how to use a normal, productive GUI. It's about drawing in new customers, not pleasing their existing ones that are getting more and more aggravated.

It's like when the Wii hit. Lot's of people like it, and hats off to you. But going from the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube... and then being stuck with "casual" games on the Wii was like a slap to the face. It's like they said "There's no money in you guys who supported us and got is this far, so we're throwing you away for some new people who don't even like games."