Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Will Use Neither (Score 1) 100

Bingo. Zero knowledge encrypted storage service providers of pretty much any stripe all suffer from the same flaw:

You are trusting them to provide you the software you are entering your decryption keys into when its time to decrypt anything.

How do you that software doesn't send them the keys? You don't.
Even if it doesn't, today, and they send you an udpate, how do you know the update doesn't send them the keys? You don't.

And if you are using a web based service... they don't even have to send you a client update; you get the latest 'client' pushed from the website automatically every time you login. Did you audit all that javascript to make sure it wasn't sending your key up? Did you compare the javascript served to you today to the javascript you audited yesterday?

It fundamentally requires that you trust them not to steal your keys, and that you continue to trust them each time you visit their site / or update the client.

Your best solution to achieve real security is to use one provider for storage (doesn't really matter who...dropbox or google or use the NSA directly if you like), and do the encryption and key management yourself; ideally using audited open source code.

Nothing is perfect, even this. And I could go on and on about how to further mitigate risks to your client side solution. But its a lot better than simply trusting your storage provider.

Comment Re:For now... bite me (Score 0) 108

Lets be very clear -- they don't care.

It'll get them nearly everything they want.

The comparatively few privacy nuts like you ... well... they'll get you "the other way", if they really care to know what's on your device.

Widespread use of user space tools will never gain traction because its always going to be substantially more work to setup. And anything done by the manufacturers and vendors to make it presetup and always on (and therefore easy) will be subject to the legislation.

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

I do not understand this view at all.

How so you seem to agree with me.

Wait 15 years and this problem will fix itself. It takes time for change to filter through the generations

I don't disagree that time is a crucial element to fixing the issue; but you can't seriously think that a hands off approach will solve all equality problems.

For instance, white people will become a minority in 2043.

That line of reasoning really doesn't really apply to men and women though. We've always been in roughly equal proportion.

When I hear these complaints that bitch about the lack of equal results vs equal opportunity, I roll my eyes. The writing is on the wall, but they want it now. It's unreasonable to expect drastic workforce demographic changes overnight.

I agree.

But if equal opportunity is already there

Is it?

all they're doing is strangling the future of young males today. 30 or 40 years from now the ratio could very well be 70-30 in favor of women, and all you accomplished was torpedoing the chances/dreams of a generation of men.

Didn't you literally JUST say big picture it will sort itself out over time. Why won't that sort it self out before it gets that far out of whack? We'll see this big crush of women ...and react and a then a generation later things will stabilize.

Meanwhile, it seems you feel women don't have the right to be upset today about the inequality that is clearly present... it's ok to torpedo their dreams today because, "it takes time for this shit to work through the system; don't worry things will be better for your grandkids" ... and in the next breath men have "every right to be upset" about a possible future that may not even come to pass where they might be at even a modest disadvantage.

I'm really doubting women will be holding 96% of the fortune 500s before things start to level off; and extremely confident that even if they surge over 50% due to misguided programs that it won't be much over 50% and it won't last the next few thousand years. So WORST case one generation of men has to deal with the prospect that he's only got 90% of the prospects he'd have had if he were born female. Big picture... so what? Just part of the long term process.

Out of curiosity, would it be "more fair" to ensure men are never at a disadvantage; but let it take a few extra generations for women to catch up?

Personally, I don't think its going to happen; and the suggestion that millennials men are already at disadvantage is laughable. They have better prospects than women. Maybe some future as yet unborn generation and the pendulum will have crossed over and they'll have fewer prospects than women, but your deluding yourself if you think millenials is that generation.

But if equal opportunity is already there

You haven't demonstrated "equal opportunity" is already there.

men of this generation should not be intentionally disadvantaged merely because of existing demographics in the workforce or because generational change takes a long time.

I completely agree. I think a lot of the programs aimed at "correcting the problem" are themselves offensive, ineffective, and counter productive. And I do think its a gradual process that's going to take time. But I don't begrudge women for wanting results faster. If you were the gender that only had 4% of the fortune 500 spots, would you be satisfied? I think not... you think millennials have every right to be upset, and they aren't even at a real disadvantage.

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

The graphs aren't stacked.

I know the graphs aren't stacked. Just looking at the graphics you can still see the curves do not change at quite the same rate.

Your text version link was quite helpful. I took the women as a percentage of the total [ women / (men+women) ] for each year graphed it, and then tossed a trendline on it.

Women, as a percentage of the total are declining. (interestingly both '83 and '01 happen to be about 27%. But the trendline shows a clear decline. See for yourself


Comment Re:Give me a raise (Score 5, Insightful) 327

Yes, it is a leadership position. But i think his point still stands. It is ~just~ another position. And its not implicitly more important, or deserving of higher pay than all other positions.

If I run a small medical practice the most important positions are the doctors. If its large enough and successful enough, it'll hire an office manager who will deal with supplies, staff scheduling, deal with contractors (window cleaners, floor waxers, IT, etc...)

Its a more demanding and complicated job than receptionist, but its not more important and demanding than being a doctor. They are paid more than the receptionists, but less than the doctors. And its *just a job*.

The small medical practice has it right... the primary productive 'employees' the doctors -- need a manager, and so they hire one. But the manager isn't their "boss". He's their manager.

Yet in corporate America, there's this pervasive lunacy where they take the equivalent of one of the Dr's, strip him of all his medical duties, "promote" him to manager, and then pay him more... and then layer on this bizarre notion that the manager should be the boss.

That works in a fast food restaurant because the manager has likely been trained on every position, can train new people for those positions, can spot fill any position as needed, as well as being responsible for dealing with customer issues, providing leadership, managing supply levels, scheduling, cash management, key holder, etc. He deserves to be paid more.

But in a lot of scenarios the small medical practice has it right. The producers should be the ones in charge of hiring, evaluating, and replacing their managers.

An engineering or architectural firm would be run the same way... the engineers or architects would hire a manager. And the manager is an employee, not their boss.

But in big corporates -- that seemingly obvious structure comes apart. And who ever is assigned to be manager is lord and master over all under his domain... he can be the least qualified person in the room, but he decides who does what, and how well they are doing it, and even what metrics to use to measure them ?!!! WTFBBQ?!!

If I had a manger in a software development team role, I'd want a structure where I'd look to him as my peer; there to do an important job of his own, where we evaluate each other; and where we can replace him if he's not working out...

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

but I don't hear people bitching about it.

I'm sorry. I don't follow?

Is your complaint that more people should be bitching about it? Because you'd be right, the culture in many of these pretty sexist; even hostile to women. One of my first jobs (still in high school) happened to be 'shit-shoveller' -- and the level of vulgarity and outright pornography that was common at the 'workplace'... definitely grounds for a lot more than just a "complaint".

But are you saying we as a society should spend a lot of resources encouraging women into unskilled low paying jobs that are rapidly becoming automated as part of a long term objective to improve equality? I'm not sure what your argument here is?

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

I'm guessing with "computer system analyst" they include data-entry employees, as pretty much all of them were women.

I'd suggest you actually check what that includes rather than just make something up to fit your preferred theory. I'm not doing your homework for you one this one.

The problem with sexism in our society is now men are a lot more often victims of sexism than women.

A lot more often the victims than they used to be sure. But more often than women is stretching it. We're still doing better than women despite all the advantages they supposedly have. I'll give you that where before sexism just affected women, it now also frequently affects men, and I agree that's anything but useful progress.

So I wonder if it's not men who are rushing in this field as it's one of the last place which is not entirely feminized, rather than women fleeing it.

That's pretty much just speculation; with nothing to back it except maybe wish fulfillment. And even if its true, it simply underscores that a proper balance hasn't been struck yet... both elsewhere, and in tech. It certainly doesn't justify keeping tech the way it is.

In 1980 there were as much men than women in universities. Now, after countless reforms to make schools and universities more appealing to girls, there's 50% more women than men. But this is ignored. Men's need are ignored, only women matter.

Yep, its a genuine problem. But its not the only problem. And its sort of inevitable.

Imagine a world where there was only mens clothing.and women had to wear it despite the poor fit. Then one day we realized that was wrong, and we started adding women's clothing. Suddenly there's clothing that's comfortable for women all over the shelves and its a poor fit for you. And when you go shopping there's less clothing available to you, because some of the shelf space that used to be for men is now not. (There's only finite shelf space after all... ) So you moan about how nobody cares about you, and every week there's less selection for you. Things have gotten worse for you. Its not your imagination. Every gain they make is at your expense. This "change" is an inevitable part of becoming equals.

But your counting down from 100% shelf space. Your fear is that we've traded places, that women are now on top, and men are the disadvantaged bottom; and that nobodies noticed yet.

But that's not the case, you've just lost 35% of your shelf space.

That's sort of where the world is right now, we're changing to accommodate them, and the mechanisms in use are blunt ugly; often ineffective, and grossly unfair. (And I agree we're doing it WRONG.) But at the end of the day, by practically all measures, we're still on top. Comfortably. We haven't traded places.

I DONT support these stupid feminist programs that are crude, ineffective, and unfair. But at the same time I do recognize that changes are necessary.

But you have to realize that we can't have a "culture" which satisfies both sexes.

I have to realize something you just made up on the spot and declared is a universal truth?

There's no question that men and women are different, but to suggest that a workplace culture can't exist that supports both is simply unfounded. Especially systematically across an entire industry. All tech jobs everywhere must cater to your so-called masculine needs. Give me a break. Plenty of other jobs manage to meet the needs of their male and female employees just fine. Men aren't fleeing like rats from a sinking ship from other more gender diverse industries.

Do we just ignore men's needs because, let's be honest, they are not socially as important as women?

Its pretty clear I don't believe that. And I've said a number of times that I think the current approaches to leveling the field are broken, wrong-headed, and often counter productive.

But 20 minutes ago you argued that women are perfectly welcome in tech, and the whole thing could be explained by how much more boys like computers. I gather you are backing away from that now a little.. since now you say its the "last totally masculine anti-feminine structured job culture"

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

The interesting thing is in the 80s there was even fewer girls into computers then now.

Well that would be a lot more interesting if it were true. Lets see what the department of labor says about that:


Scroll down to the 2nd graph "Employed computer systems analysts, scientists by sex 1983 - 2001"

In the 80s women made up nearly half, and the gap has increased. So there were in fact more women computer scientists and systems analysts in the 80 than now. Not less. That pretty much trashes your entire thesis.

But you know what, I completely agree with you that men and women are likely biased towards different things. And I agree its pretty likely in a world with no sexism men would still be prevalent in some fields and women prevalent in others. I don't dispute that. I'm not suggesting every job needs to be 50:50 men and women or: sexism !!

But just because that is true, that doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist, and isn't a problem in any industry.

Additionally, when the women who ARE in tech leave tech they most frequently cite the culture as being the primary issue. That doesn't line up with your thesis that they aren't interested in the subject... they WERE interested in the subject, they enjoyed the subject, they left in droves because of the culture. And yeah... I have cites for that... three different studies.




Not totally convinced? That's fine; you owe it to your own intellectual integrity to accept that maybe the situation is more complicated than "women don't like computers as much as you do" after all.

So when you talk about sexism, give me a fucking break. No. Scratch that. There is a problem of sexism in tech : women are privileged over men.

In the sense that all these over-the-top-sexist (pro-feminist) and highly ineffective programs to get women back into tech exist, I completely agree. They don't solve anything, and if anything make things worse. They are part of the problem, but they are not the entire problem by a long shot.

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

No they aren't. Who ever steered a man away from becoming an elementary school teacher???

The other teachers, his social peers, his parents and friends, the people doing the hiring who subscribe to the same attitude as your ... "men obviously choose to teach older kids" so obviously if your applying for this job its just until you can get transferred to the high school... so I'll just hire a nice lady teacher who actually wants the job and I won't have to replace her... unless we need a token man because my boss is saying we need diversity, then I guess the job is yours...

Despite that, I don't deny that men and women may naturally gravitate towards teaching different grades.

It is encouraged in fact

Sure. Just like women are encouraged to be in tech.

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

Me: Hey, I notice there aren't a lot of men in nursing, or elementary school teachers, what's up with that?

Good question.

Actually no, I never asked that question

You should.

because the answer to it was obvious.

Yes. Quite. Societal peer pressure / peer judgment / being relatively unwelcome by the people there. Men are steered away from pursuing those at every turn.

Just like the answer to why there aren't a lot of women in tech is obvious.

Yes. Quite. But not the answer you wish it was.

Comment Re:Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 1) 694

Yeah man. It's like the prejudice and sexism in hair dressing

Quite. You think heteromen interested in hair dressing aren't driven away by misogynist peer pressures?

and dress designing!

Is that even dominated by women? I'm far from sure about that.

We need to start training more heterosexual men to be hair dressers and dress designers in elementary school.

Funny. I may recognize that there are issues in several industries... but I don't subscribe to this as a solution for any of them.


The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan