Microsoft's mistake seems to have been allowing its US staff to access those servers at all. If Twitter can arrange it so that US staff simply cannot get access then it seems like they would be safe, because the law in the US can only require a person to hand over something they have. At least that's my understanding of it, perhaps someone can correct me but I think the onus would be on the government to show that the US staff have the information it wants.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The issue in that case is that a court has ordered access, it's not a problem with NSA hacking.
I welcome this move. As a European it protects my privacy a little more. It also punishes the US economically for the actions of the NSA, and unfortunately money is the only language they seem to understand. It's a shame GCHQ's actions are not having quite as dramatic effect on the UK, but for my part I have now moved all my servers overseas so there's a few quid gone.
Hothotware.com reviews are pretty shitty too. Bog standard benchmark suite, and no mention of critical missing features like OPAL V2 (or eDrive as Microsoft calls it, basically proper encryption support) or how it handles unexpected loss of power in real world conditions.
Google copied it's user interface and general device layout
Android has been announced before the iPhone came out. Apple copied Android as much as Android copied them, for example with the notification shade and app support.
The iPhone was an evolution. The interface was nice, but not quite as revolutionary as was made out at the time. That was just the Apple hype machine, which started to look increasingly silly as every new device was described as "revolutionary, again" because it had a slightly better than average screen or half working voice input.
That started long ago with he Men's Rights movement. It got a bad name pretty quickly because it was basically a bunch of misogynists. I mention this because I'd love to see a real masculinist movement, but if you want to start one you need to be careful not to let it fail like previous attempts did.
You don't know what the word "literally" means, do you?
English is kinda fundamental though, without that the other stuff is kind of hard to master.
You are making two massive massive assumptions. You assume most guys are interested in STEM, and you assume most girls are not. Neither of those appears to be true.
Even if those assumptions were true, so what? Boys can already study STEM just fine in mixed schools, they don't need a boys only one. So what would the point of building one be? Just to satisfy some childish "she has one, so I must have one as well" feeling?
Watch a couple of minutes of this: https://youtu.be/2BzDmZHYCrw?t...
I linked to the right place for you. Those are real girls, with real experiences. They are being discouraged by a variety of factors. I'm afraid your anecdote is not data, but the study that video is based on absolutely is.
This sounds like the kind of reaction our glorious overlords were having to people landing on the Capitol lawn on September 10th, 2001.
A little miffed, patronizing, an official "We have our eye on you", but not guns drawn, no disappearances into Cuban prison camps, no insane over-reactions.
There was a professor on the radio talking about this the other day. It was BBC Radio 4, but I can't find the details now. Anyway, they were saying that when they looked at it they found that children with less self esteem actually tended to do better. Particularly Asian children and girls where were less confident than boys on average. It seems that having too much self esteem makes it harder for children to accept failure and learn from it, or to take chances (such as volunteering information in class or groups) because of the possibility they may be wrong.
Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.
That's my point, you are agreeing with me. This isn't discrimination at all, it's providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them but don't disadvantage or advantage either.
So SJWs want to make the make the world a better place. MRAs want to drag it back to the 1950s when men were real men.
There has been a lot of research into this topic. Wikipedia has a good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
TL;DR there is no difference between men and women in general. In some specific areas there are small variations, such as higher variability (but the same average) on IQ tests for men. The old "men have better spacial awareness" thing isn't quite right either; men are better are mentally rotating objects, women have better spacial memory. Ultimately though the differences are fairly minor and subject to a huge amount of variation from individual to individual, and gender itself is far from binary.
It's actually quite easy to see that claims about certain genders "naturally" preferring certain things are bogus. Maths used to be considered a male subject, but girls now outperform boys at school. Something social changed for them to overtake boys. In Japan basketball is much more popular with girls at school than boys, but in other countries it's the exact opposite.
The point of these social experiments seems to get more and more women into the desk and office jobs. That leaves only the grubby, dirty, outside jobs for men. And nobody gives a shit about that.
That's the standard MRA line - that for women to have good jobs, men must lose out and have dirty, low paid jobs.
It's not a zero sum game. It doesn't justify ignoring the problems because fixing them might take away someone else's privilege.
But the "it's so awful, get all the training for girls and ignore boys!" hysteria seems pointless.
I agree, but you are the one spouting that hysteria! It says so right in the headline! You didn't even have to read the summary. There is a school opening just for boys to help them in the areas they are behind.
A boy growing up now who didn't have all these special programs will have a tough time competing with the girls who were prepped and trained for this their entire lives
Ignoring the fact that they have their own special, boys-only school, you are assuming that there is no disadvantage for girls. There is, so any extra help they get is just making up for that, not giving them an advantage over boys. If a boy wants to study CS there are already fewer barriers in their way, and there are other programmes aimed at removing the ones that do exist.
You are trying really hard to make this a conflict when it really isn't.