Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:A Brand New World In Which Men Ruled (Score 4, Insightful) 214

by Austerity Empowers (#48665225) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

Yet "high-tech" started long before that, and was already very gender biased. The article specifically said "email", which was quite common in the 80s on college campuses and high tech industries, I know because I had to maintain some legacy scripts, rules for which were set up in the 80s and nobody really understood anymore in 2000.

The article is correct on some facts, but is entirely lost in narrative.

Comment: Re:A Brand New World In Which Men Ruled (Score 4, Informative) 214

by Austerity Empowers (#48664633) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

I thought it was serious until I read that students showed up at Stanford in 1994 barely knowing what email was. Then I realized it's satire. I mean, you can't seriously propose that the tech revolution started in 1994, right? Even Intel, Apple and Microsoft are latecomers to teh tech revolution, which was already very gender biased in the late 70s. When did "high tech" begin? I'm not sure, maybe WWII, maybe the industrial revolution, or maybe as late as teh semiconductor. All of these were well before Stanford class of '94 graduates were BORN. Even I knew what email was long before 1994, I even had email of my own.

This isn't intended to be a geriatric post where I try to claim I'm an OG, most things high-tech were invented before I was born. C existed, Unix was a thing. The only thing the mid-90s meant to high-tech was the birth of the popular internet, which many of us remember being the death of the useful internet.

Comment: Re:I don't quite get this... (Score 1) 290

by Austerity Empowers (#48660963) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

It's true they can't interfere with other communications intentionally, or through some byproduct of their transmitter that doesn't fit within spec. However if they are sending data over all the available channels on their wifi links, that is "legal" as long as they have plausible deniability and feel comfortable defending it in court.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 3, Interesting) 290

by Austerity Empowers (#48660881) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

More or less. If you build a faraday cage around your house, that's legal. If you build a jammer, that is illegal.

It seems like jammers are bad because you can't control the range of their effectiveness. On the other hand faraday cages tend to block more frequencies than you'd like, ex. you probably also would block cell reception.

Comment: Re:yea but (Score 2) 579

by Austerity Empowers (#48625899) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

There's no way Sony would be liable for an act of war or terrorist attack due to their decision to air a movie. We can't even hold them responsible for the financial loss and emotional damages that most of their movies already cause, and that is absolutely through their own negligence!

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 3, Funny) 579

by Austerity Empowers (#48625873) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

I wonder too, considering by some accounts it's just a really bad movie ( , warning, it's CNN and it's an editorial, take with a shot of tequila and a salt shaker). The only known way of making people see a really bad movie is to have Michael Bay do the special effects, or make some controversy around it. Michael Bay is no doubt working on Transformers N: Plan Gigli from Outer Space

I don't think NK has the capability of making good on telegraphed threats, nor would they like the response.

Comment: Re:Home of the brave? (Score 1) 586

I'm not sure hacking Sony implies the capacity to pull off "9/11 style attacks". Further, pulling off "9/11 style attacks" might be considered an overt act of war, and regardless of the difficult political situation there, little Kimmy might find himself the victim of "Iraq Style Liberation".

Comment: Re:Confused. (Score 1) 208

Why do we have to assume one way or the other? Why not just admit we don't know and let people do what they want instead of trying to push them to do what we think they should?

So I agree, no one should push you into a career you don't want to be in. The question is whether something is pushing them out of STEM, even if they do want to be in it. I don't think that's answered by the horseshit in TFA. The question is whether these people are lefties because that is their dominant hand, or because all they have is left-handed scissors.

I disagree that we should just accept the status quo without further investigation. The problem in a nutshell: the gender pay gap. If you are going to doom a demographic to lower wages, you should have good reasons for it. Is there a good reason for it? What is that reason? Is it solvable in a way we can tolerate?

Comment: Re:Confused. (Score 5, Insightful) 208

there ARE no differences between boys and girls

If anyone is saying that, they are clearly idiots. The internet has copious data regarding the differences between boys and girls. Even after eliminating the porn sites, you end up with various physiological and psychological differences. We're very different in general, the extent to which and whether it's nature or nurture will no doubt rage on for the rest of our lives. There is absolutely no reason to think men and women are the same...

The question of equality is where they are asserting men and women can perform the same. Until evidence exists to the contrary, we have to assume this is true. This is not to say that men and women will do the same things to establish this equality, or will acquire knowledge or even perform the function identically. Only that in the end they will produce the same results.

to create curriculum specifically for girls, who are no different than boys

Accepting the above, which I believe with conviction, this then falls apart. However, where I would direct my nerd rage is at the conclusion that lead to creating a gender specific curriculum as a solution. It must have been something like "CS education as it exists is incompatible with female psychology; a CS education program which can target both genders is impossible, ergo we need to fork a new curriculum". I can't imagine the kind of data that existed to justify this. If it did exist, it seems like a likely assumption than the genders will probably require dedicated education on other topics as well, and maybe we should go back to having boys and girls schools across the board.

Personally I think the problem is entirely social and cultural, and we're wasting our time with this stuff.

Comment: Re:Does the job still get done? (Score 1) 678

Stop being sensible. This is our weekly "fear the AI" post. Soon they'll have to change the tagline: news for luddites, stuff to fear.

Obviously the solution is going to have to be to figure out how to retrain people in later life, the system already doesn't work even without AI, but put in context of changing technology and shifting labor forces. You wake up one day and some wall st. nitwit has decided that china or india has a comparative advantage for certain kinds of work, and whether that's true or not he will make it true by sending the work over there. So it will be time to retrain. Asking the average guy who is in debt for his house, his car, often his regular living expenses to also be saving money for re-education is just not going to fly.

But we can just blame AI for taking our jobs because that's easy and doesn't sound like a tax hike on the wealthy.

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.