Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Grace Hoppper would be PISSED (Score 1) 548

by malkavian (#47282021) Attached to: Girls Take All In $50 Million Google Learn-to-Code Initiative

Well:

1) Some girls choose to be sex objects. Feminists tell them they can't be. Most females are not sex objects (though in interpersonal relationships there are aspects of that, the same way a man has an aspect of sex object to females). So, to be roughly correct, most females aren't exclusively sex objects at all times, though most probably choose to be at times in certain circumstances.
2) That's definitely true. But if everyone held to that correct notion, it would deprive many a pretty gal (or handsome guy) of one of their very potent weapons.. Smart and pretty is a very, very potent mix. If you underestimate that, do so at your own peril, as you'll likely be facing them looking down at you on the corporate ladder from quite a height in the future. Knowing it and being fooled by it are two different things.
3) Again, true.

The majority of people already know all that though. There's nothing new in there at all.

Comment: Re: Let's get this out of the way... (Score 2) 200

by belg4mit (#47099875) Attached to: Wikipedia Medical Articles Found To Have High Error Rate

Osteopathy itself is pretty wacky, but the trend is for schools to fall more in line with the practices of conventional medicine. It's also worth noting that osteopathic schools have a tendency to accept more non-traditional students e.g; late career change, or non-scientific undergraduate degrees.

+ - Yahoo Stops Honoring 'Do-Not-Track' Settings->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "When web browsers started implementing 'do-not-track' settings, Yahoo got some respect for being the first of the huge tech companies to honor those settings. Unfortunately, that respect has now gone out the door. As of this week, Yahoo will no longer alter their data collection if a user doesn't want to be tracked. They say there are two reasons for this. First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track. Second, they don't think do-not-track is viable. They say, '[W]e've been at the heart of conversations surrounding how to develop the most user-friendly standard. However, we have yet to see a single standard emerge that is effective, easy to use and has been adopted by the broader tech industry.' It looks like this is another blow to privacy on the web."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:But are they being forced? (Score 2) 226

by malkavian (#46769787) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

Nice when you get the time to develop every system from scratch, and don't have multiple departments saying "We need this now". And actually meaning it.
Then having to ensure that what you've put in place stays up with a 24x7x365 uptime requirement, and recoverability to the last transaction.
Oh, and hey, this thing that some department has purchased because they couldn't wait for the system to created, it only runs on another version of Linux (or on Windows with SQL Server!).. They need that put in there too.. You say no? The execs say yes, as they're already bought into it.
And the regular programming load while you're setting this in? Not getting any lighter.
Building things back to initial point in time is simple; any full fledged config management system can do that at the press of a button. Keeping it running, tuned, and error free.. That's the interesting bit.

Comment: DevOps that work.. (Score 2) 226

by malkavian (#46769707) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

A working DevOps group should be an amalgamation of the Dev team and Ops teams.
Trying to forge one team where everyone knows everything simply sets a level of mediocrity; you can research so far down an avenue in a given time, and get only so good at it.
I've learned from the ground up (i.e. electronics, basics of VLSI, board design, basic OS design, all layers of the stack programming), and went from there on to system admin. Then did a stint as a developer using the knowledge that I had from my earlier history, and found that the sysop area of my knowledge atrophied in the detail (and the devil is _always_ in the detail) the more I concentrated on being a better dev.
Went back to more of the operator/business side of things, and lo and behold, the more I go into systems and how to put together a proper reliable, recoverable infrastructure, the more my dev is atrophying. I'm half management these days, which means the ops side _and_ the dev side are both atrophying. The guys that do it in a dedicated fashion are more familiar with the latest tech than I am..

You can be a jack of all trades.. But I seriously hope a company doesn't rely on you to get them out of trouble when the fecal matter hits the fan.. If you've been spending most of your time developing, with the nod to tuning the servers so your app runs better, you're not likely to have been able to put the time in to develop the wider infrastructure to support things going fubar, or had the time and concentration to really work out what is likely to get you.

Having a few people marked as DevOps would be useful when you need to populate a middle ground.. They can work with both dedicated ops, and dedicated dev to ensure that scalability is baked in, and resilience is baked in to the apps. When it comes to ensuring the boxes are kept in tidy order for everyone, and get to be able to recover from the smoking ruins.. That's where the dedicated ops shine. When you really want that app to do something really slick, that's when a dedicated dev shines.

Small scale, a DevOps person would work. The larger you scale, the less appropriate it becomes (as the only solution; a big company with the techs being solely a DevOps team would scare me).

Comment: Re:i don't understand (Score 5, Insightful) 564

by malkavian (#46670739) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Where, oh where does he epouse the views that Gays are inferior to non-gay? You're setting up a straw man argument right there.
This is nothing to do with that at all. What's actually happened as an extension of all the racism laws is that if you're an ethnic minority, you actually get to be recist to everybody, and that's legally ok (affirmative action anyone? It's not positive discrimination of a small group, it's negative discrimination against a majority).
It seems that everyone seems to be saying "You're white, therefore you're racist".. Yet if your skin isn't white, you can throw around racial epithets and people fight your corner.. After being up in front of a tribunal for calling a co-councilor in Bristol "A coconunt" (brown on the outside, white on the inside, which is apparently a standard parlance in the Black/Ethnic Minority groups, and perfectly acceptable in their eyes, one councillor brown said in her defence, shocked that she was charged with being racist "I can't be racist because I'm black".
That's the view in the political factions all to often..
So perhaps that is what's happening with the LGBT scene these days.. They're generally socially accepted these days, the same as anyone else (actually, probably more so than me, because I'm an introvert by nature).. Just when someone isn't happy with it, they get a huge spitting mob behind them.
Another great example, a Gay couple wanted to stop in a B&B. When they said they wanted a double room together, the old lady running it said no.. She didn't want unmarried people sharing beds under her roof. There was a national scandal, and the landlady was hauled through the courts, and had the national newpapers hounding her (and making her quite ill). What came out at the end of this was that she didn't let _any_ unmarried people, gay, straight, whatever share beds (officially) under her roof as it made her uncomfortable. Everyone else was ok with this, or went elsewhere (she provided alternative places very locally that would cater to this quite happily).. Gay people stayed there and were happy (and she never had objection to that, or asked, or batted an eyelid if it was brought up). It was a Gay couple that decided that her wishes about unmarried sexual behaviour didn't apply to them. They made it all a political showcase, dragging her through the mud, even when it was made plain to them it was about anything but their being gay or not.
That's the problem with this focussed "anti-homophobia", "anti-racist" thing. It's gone from being a way of stopping very serious discrimination into being a weapon of discrimination against those you have a personal problem with.

Comment: Re:And where is the news? (Score 2) 564

by malkavian (#46670527) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

"The articles just points out how much damage the bigot views of Mr. Eich could have caused Mozilla and the employees of Mozilla were more then justified to call for his resignation. If you believes and actions are damaging the company you are suppose to represent, then you are not fit to be the CEO."

His views weren't bigot views. He's very friendly with the LGBT community in general, but his views on marriage don't happen to coincide. He didn't go hounding them out of jobs etc. He just expressed a view, and put his money where his mouth is. You know, freedom of speech and all that. And freedom of religion (hey, Jesus is recorded in the Bible as being against gay marriage, so is it unsurprising that a religious guy would listen to that, and also go on record that he 'believes' in the teachings of his religion)?
So, harm to his employees? Not so much.
His actions (inventing JavaScript, founding the Mozilla foundation, attending talks and seriously doing a lot of good in the developer and open world) are what he should be judged by in terms of his fitness to run the company, and I find those credentials a lot better than the mob howling for blood.

So, if you think Google are perfectly in the right to withhold money from Mozilla because of someone's personal opinion, then is it also fine to start withholding money for pro LGBT organisations because they say things that you think may be damaging? Really? You're opening that Pandora's box?

By all means, consider the guy as having had a dickish moment in supporting the organisations. But considering that as something that makes him unworthy to run an organisation? Wow..

I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong

Working...