And how long has there been misogny in women in IT discussion on slashdot?

Damned if I know; check the archives. Long time, certainly.

How long have guys like you been throwing around "social justice warrior" as an epithet?

Oh, rather more recently I suspect.

And I'm the bad guy for throwing a few curses around?

Throwing them around as indiscriminately as you (and others I would tag "social justice warriors") do certainly doesn't make you a good guy. It isn't just the words, it's the demonizing; I mean, we know we're not demons, at least, most of us do. Maybe your vitriol will convince a few insecure straight white males that they don't deserve what they have; maybe it'll find root in a few who actually had the easy time of it that you claim we all did. But for most of us, it's just a false accusation and indeed marks you as the bad guy.

In the long term it is. Because then you will HAVE to earn what you get fairly against real competition without "cheating"

In the long term, we're all dead. Discriminating against me because of the actions of some straight white males in the past (or even some other straight white males in the present) doesn't better me, so it certainly doesn't better "us all". As for "cheating", no, I haven't cheated. Even the narrative of privilege doesn't claim those benefiting from privilege are actually cheating.

Let me use a gaming example? Isn't it more rewarding to beat a game without cheats, than with? Beat it on "Normal" and not "easy"?

According to Scalzi, I don't have a choice what level I play on. But I reject the idea that I'm cheating or even playing on "easy".

I don't think so, I've not seen any feminist use [white knight], but I sure have seen a lot of anti-feminist men do so here on Slashdot.

Check various feminism websites.

Modern Slashdotters in their 20's have more in common with jocks than old style geeks/nerds.

ROTFL. You know this how? I can't speak for slashdotters, but I work with a lot of younger software engineers, and they're still geeks, not jocks.

You've seen the term "brogrammer" bandied around. They may be a programmer, but they watch ESPN and drink brewskis with the bros rather than put on spock ears, go to a con and play Battletech.

Brogramming was a hoax; a joke, based on the juxtaposition of two opposite stereotypes, the geek/nerd and the "bro". Now it serves the purpose of demonstrating that those taken in by it have no idea what they're talking about.

The "program" is simple, it's: "Don't be a misogynist/racist/etc, and we need to remedy past and present discrimination" What part of that is controversial? We learned the value of that years ago.

Well, first of all, the definitions of the terms keep changing. Used to be that not being a racist meant not discriminating based on race, and similarly for sexist. We were fine with that. Now we're being told it's OK to discriminate based on race and sex, as long as it's against white people and males.... whoa, whoa, whoa, that's moving the goalpost, and it's definitely not OK. The term "misogyny", similarly, has been widened, even so far as to include completely non-discriminatory behavior that is supposedly characteristic of men and disproportionately affects women.

Further, the idea that remedying past discrimination is desirable is controversial in itself. It quickly gets into a muddle of just who discriminated against who and who benefited and was hurt. The idea that "white people benefited from discrimination against black people, so to remedy that we should discriminate against different white people to benefit different black people" is quite controversial.

The same goes for present discrimination to a lesser extent; remedying specific instances of discrimination is uncontroversial, but adding a general counterbalance to present discrimination against one group by discriminating for that group is controversial.

In this case, it's not just "extremely hard to exploit" (which means the NSA had it done 10 years ago and the other black hats 5). It appears that it's impossible -- to cause the overrun requires an compressed block size larger than the affected programs will accept. (of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility of other bugs which allow a larger compressed block through)

We are always told how efficient cities are as compared to other forms of living but the cities are the only places that actually seem to need high levels of subsidization. If they were so efficient they wouldn't.

Haha, you haven't looked at agricultural subsidies lately (or ever), have you?

Mass transit is certainly massively subsidized (often by the same drivers that urbanistas despise so much), but to say that cities are the only places that need subsidization is ridiculous.

Unfair or not, I think a bigger problem is it's not going to work. Because it's based on the idea that the reason women aren't going into programming in large numbers is due to relative lack of opportunity, which simply isn't so.

The difference is that few would argue that going hunting by connecting your gun to a couple of $9 servos, and operating it over a glitchy radio link where you have a tiny field of view through a bad camera, and it may randomly go off if you lose radio is a sane thing to do.

The FAA opposes that, but they're perfectly fine with operating it over a glitchy radio link where all you have is a Mk I eyeball located a thousand feet away.

The American Medical Association? I should think not. If you did that, each drone would cost something north of 5 figures and could only be used by someone who went through a decades long training program while channeling hallucinations from some old dead Greek guy.

Unfortunately, while it's the Academy of Model Aeronautics rather than the American Medical Association, this isn't far from the truth. The AMA isn't fond of FPV in the first place, it's just that they want to be the model aircraft police rather than the FAA, and the want to make it so model aircraft flying consists mostly of old retired guys (who went through a long training program, though without the dead Greek guy) flying planes in circles in AMA-approved locations.

I consider the term "social justice warrior" perjorative.

Take it any way you want it; if it's pejorative, you've earned more than a few pejoratives thrown your way.

Shouldn't we all be striving for social justice that betters us all?

Ah, but you're not; you're striving for social justice that puts the heterosexual white man down. I'm aware you think that's because we have unearned advantage that you'd like to take away, but even if that's so, it's still not bettering us all.

The overuse of that term (and others like "White knight") over the past few months of the various minorities in computing discussions on Slashdot has made me rather angry at what I perceive as the overly privileged locker room mentality here.

You know the term "white knight" comes from modern feminism, right? And it's pejorative there. It's about the only thing in these discussions nearly all parties agree on (except the white knights) -- nobody likes a white knight.

As for your anger at a perceived "locker room mentality" (which is pretty ridiculous, considering the traditional divide between geeks and jocks), getting angry at those who disagree with you might work in an environment like the workplace where you have authority to back up your anger and claims that disagreement counts as oppression; it isn't going to work here.

Normally I'm rather easy going and don't participate in the women in IT discussions in part because I find the misogyny in them disgusting....but I've had enough of what I think of as overly selfish jerks on Slashdot. It's 2014, it's time for those people to get with the program. I'm tired of being "nice".

Ah, but that's just the thing; you have neither consensus on what "the program" is nor the power to impose it on those who don't agree. You're skipping the step of demonstrating that your "program" is in fact the right thing, and getting angry when everyone won't just fall into line.

I consider the term "social justice warrior" perjorative.

Take it any way you want it; if it's pejorative, you've earned more than a few pejoratives thrown your way.

Shouldn't we all be striving for social justice that betters us all?

Ah, but you're not; you're striving for social justice that puts the heterosexual white man down. I'm aware you think that's because we have unearned advantage that you'd like to take away, but even if that's so, it's still not bettering us all.

The overuse of that term (and others like "White knight") over the past few months of the various minorities in computing discussions on Slashdot has made me rather angry at what I perceive as the overly privileged locker room mentality here.

You know the term "white knight" comes from modern feminism, right? And it's pejorative there. It's about the only thing in these discussions nearly all parties agree on (except the white knights) -- nobody likes a white knight.

As for your anger at a perceived "locker room mentality" (which is pretty ridiculous, considering the traditional divide between geeks and jocks), getting angry at those who disagree with you might work in an environment like the workplace where you have authority to back up your anger and claims that disagreement counts as oppression; it isn't going to work here.

Normally I'm rather easy going and don't participate in the women in IT discussions in part because I find the misogyny in them disgusting....but I've had enough of what I think of as overly selfish jerks on Slashdot. It's 2014, it's time for those people to get with the program. I'm tired of being "nice".

Ah, but that's just the thing; you have neither consensus on what "the program" is nor the power to impose it on those who don't agree. You're skipping the step of demonstrating that your "program" is in fact the right thing, and getting angry when everyone won't just fall into line.

So explain then why 30 years ago or so there are many many more women in computing, as a percentage, than there are today?

That's certainly a good question, and one I've seen no one try to answer aside from the knee-jerk orthodoxy about smelly and misogynistic nerds. Percentage of women getting a bachelors degree in computer science peaked in 1984; absolute number peaked in 1986. Up until 1984 it had been rising since 1967, after 1984 it dropped sharply then slowly leveled off. Then it dropped like a rock again in 2004.

Yes, but in the social justice hierarchy, ANY white male, even the illegitimate son of a meth-addled trailer-park whore, is privileged above ANY female or minority (except Asians don't usually count), and can therefore be discriminated against freely on the grounds that it is merely leveling the playing field.

Look, I understand how you feel, and posted similar things in the other recent discussions on this...but all you'll get is a bunch of overprivileged twats working together to flame you to oblivion and pulling out various "it isn't a problem" "It's not my problem" or "citation needed" on you.

Hey, I know this is off topic, but why is it that you social justice warriors tend to be some of the nastiest posters around? And in particular why so free with insults related to reproductive parts, such as "dick" and "twat", the sorts of things you'd find horribly offensive from the rest of us? Are you just utter hypocrites, or is there some twisted sort of point you're trying to make?

I don't even know what you're trying to say. How do you propose to fix the obvious and real problem of underrepresentation of over half of our population?

I agree that underrepresentation is real and obvious; I do not agree that it is obvious that this is a problem, and I certainly don't think it's the sort of problem which is so dire that the ends justify nearly any means.

Is it to have more classes dominated by white guy brogrammers?

Please. You know brogramming was a hoax, right? That the reason the hoax was funny is because the stereotype of geeks is so far from the stereotype of nerds that the juxtaposition is funny. There may be a few brogrammers out there in a life-imitates-art kind of way. But it isn't and never was any sort of norm.

You've never been in an office full of people who are different than you are.

That's sort of amusing, as I'm the only white American on my team right now.

I _am_ a white guy who had a very large amount of privilege globally-speaking, but through various life experiences I have developed the ability to recognize that. You should, too.

I'm supposed to believe that I had and continue to have it easy because I'm a white man, and that this justifies any amount of discrimination against me? That any (e.g.) white woman has had it infinitely more difficult than me? No, I do not subscribe to your philosophy.

There's places which hire H-1B workers the way you say. But there's also places that hire H-1B workers by the planeload at cut-rate wages; it is easy enough to play games with job titles to make it look legal.

From the text: "And those premature deaths cost the United States $224 billion a year, the report found, or $1.90 a drink."

That's a lie, as it turns out. The study they reference finds a $1.90/drink figure for all effects attributed to excessive drinking, not premature deaths. The lion's share of the cost was "lost productivity", to which I reply "It was mine to lose, I'm not your slave. Bartender, another drink."