I've heard that arrogance before and it's silly. If people are doing free work for you you don't get to set the terms of how they do it. This guy did free security work for them, they shouldhave been beating a path to his door to make the best use of that work. Or, you know, being entirely free to ignore it at their peril. Which they did.
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).
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.
They were offering the same compute power at like 10% of the power by using low power (and low compute) processors stacked on a fabric that eliminated their weaknesses.
Except that never worked because the low power processors didn't get great ops/watt so even that wasn't much if anything of an advantage. They were using atom processors which while low power were less efficient that the server processors at many of the workloads.
The core market of this was the datacenter virtual machine market. Their servers could host unreal numbers of virtual machines due to their high IO and low latency.
They SM10000 were 5U deep. In 5U you could fit 320 AMD cores, which are faster than the 768 Atom cores that the SM10000 had. Additionally, the 1U AMD servers draw about 500W each, totalling 2.5kW, similar to the 2kW of the SM10000. The actual good stuff they had was the management, but they tried to sell it on something which was not in fact true.
That said the flexibility was not complete, since the 1U PCs supported larger system images.
As always there is an xkcd comic that answers your question in a nice and easy to understand fashion.
I leave it to you to find the relevant link
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.
First point - granted. But if no private company has picked it up in the meantime, it's probably because it's just not profitable.
Yeah, it's not profitable because someone ELSE is paying for the roads and the congestion cost. If you're the government then YOU are paying for it. So if you save money at the cost of increased congestion, you've almost certainly damped down the economy a bit and actually lost money.
Last train driver strike, the signallers went out on strike too in sympathy. It's not as simple, once things are unionised.
Well, maybe but is there ever a recorded instance of the line going down due to a strike? I thought that driverless implied automated.
Anyway sounds likle you have a whole host of awkward problems with regard to delivery,. including a rather distant local post office. Are you sure there's no one closer? Sometimes they hide in little convenience stores. They'll redeliver them to those locations as well.
I'm not arguing against having someone deliver at a time one is actually in. That would be useful.
So density is way overrated as a differentiator in the server market. It doesn't really matter to the bulk of the customers anyway and people that fall for the whole blade server thing but buy server chassis that are not totally full to start, are nuts. IF you cannot afford the blades now, trust me, you won't be able to get them in 2 years after they are EOL'ed by the vendor. Just buy separate servers and keep the upgrade path as simple as possible. So none of this has anything to do with the CPU vendor in the first place and AMD was barking up the wrong tree trying to play in this market.
Yep, I pointed this out at the time (not sure I could dig out the
I mean the old stuff was bad, you'd get a 2 or 4U box with a lonely little CPU floating around in the middle of it, and that WAS bad. But the modern COTS stuff is basically as space efficient as you can get without being super exotic (more so than SeaMicro). So you're right that it's no looking at a small percentage of FLOPS or RAM per entire rack and that's not worse the silly cost of "blade" servers.
I did actually do the calculations when the SeaMicro boxes were announced and they got handily trounced on every single metric by COTS 1U servers. Even the power draw they were claiming wasn't great.
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.