Link to Original Source
This isn't DRM it is just an update on an old business model that happens to use a small circuit to achieve the same result.
The fundamentals never change. With a solid base, there is nothing a programmer can't do.
An AA program focused on what will get them hired today is exactly what will not get them hired tomorrow.
That is true. And so many of us are thankful we learned the fundamentals and principles because we have had really gainfull and fulfilling careers because of it. But not everyone is like us.
There are a lot of people who don't want to / cannot learn the fundamentals. But since they have been told the only path towards the middle class is to go to a 4 year school they will enroll and either drop out, flunk out, change majors, or graduate being barely competent in what they studied. And they will most likely have a lot of debt.
Wouldn't it be better to give those who wish it another option?
To me the question is who is better off: someone who half-assed their way through a CompE degree, got out with $50,000 in debt and is still barely employable as a entry level programmer? Or someone who skipped all the "fluff" and got a 2 year practical programming degree for a fraction of the cost, and is still barely employable as an entry level programmer? I'm arguing it is the guy with less debt.
Siri: "I see that you have received a text from Ms. Longlegs with the address for the Super 8 motel, would you like directions?"
Siri: "I noticed that your most frequent destination is: Woody's Rub and Tug, would you like directions? Shall I make a reservation?"
So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently?"
1) Whole Foods is a grocery store, the Creation Museum claims to be a museum.
2) Certain states aren't trying to teach children the "controversy" surrounding dandelion root extract supposedly curing my ailments. There isn't a national debate surrounding gluten-free pancake mix. Politicians don't get elected to office by appealing to the "this organic sea salt is only 4000 years old" crowd.
But to play ball: in the US as in many other developed nations you can't discriminate against employees because of things like that. If I have diabetes you can't discriminate against me because I may have low blood sugar one day and have to go home. You can't discriminate someone with a propensity to get the flu every winter because on average that person misses more days than someone who doesn't get the flu. Furthermore you can't just lump all women together and generalize about them. Some choose not to have children, should they be punished because some women do choose to have children?
Were you really trying to say that there is such a disparity between the number of men and women in software engineering because they may take more time off? Or were you just waiting for your chance to get in a cheap shot against women?
You may not be a misogynist, but you do have some silly thoughts regarding women.
The same productivity gap for women exists in all industries. 5 days a month and doesn't die, etc. etc.
Every time some neckbeard opens his mouth and allows the misogyny to flow out it just reinforces the notion that there needs to be more incentive for women to get into software. I know this is
I know it is impossible, but I just want there to be honest discourse about this supposed "STEM shortage / gender gap". There is no STEM shortage just like there is no Lawyer shortage. The gender gap in software engineering isn't a problem just like the gender gap in nursing isn't a problem. Corporations want to turn software engineers into a commodity. Period.
"This paper analyses and proposes a novel detection strategy for the 'Chameleon’ WiFi AP-AP virus."
The virus uses the AP's web interface to trigger a firmware upgrade, and then provides a malicious firmware that contains code that spreads the virus. If this is the first time someone did that I'm going to kick myself for not going into security research. Given the plethora of open source AP firmware that already supports many commodity APs it should be trivial to do something like this. All you need is a sufficiently dense collection of APs that are compatible with your malicious firmware. We all already know that a poorly secured AP is a great attack vector, even without malicious firmware you can redirect all of the client's traffic through your own routers and you have your self a classic man in the middle.
The main point of this research is to show that they developed better detection methods that don't compromise any of the AP's client's expectation of privacy.