Do you really think MSS has not been developed since the 90s? Admittedly I haven't used it since 2004, but back then it was pretty much the only way to get good, performant 3D audio running with a variety of sound cards. I'd imagine it has grown a whole lot of features and platform support since then.
> You aren't expected to diagnose the ever-growing list of infectious diseases.
The list isn't growing. If it is, it's growing much slower than the list of available drugs/
> You'll never be called on to give a colonoscopy.
Most doctors aren't Gastroenterologists, so neither will they.
Also, giving one is probably less unpleasant than receiving one.
>Many pharmacists go their entire careers without ever being stopped in the hallway because "that lump on the patient in 208 just burst and is oozing something purple."
And so will almost all doctors
>Less radiation exposure.
If you get radiation exposure as a doctor, you're either doing emergency relief at a nuclear plant, or you're not doing your job right.
>Rubbish. Women aren't as good at men in sports.
Assuming you have a decent TV service, look back at the winter Olympics. Snowboarding, bobsleigh, skeleton, skiing. Is the women's competition any worse than the mens? Look at the icedancing, speed skating, etc. Still not convinced?
Historically, men have watched sports, and - particularly in the team sports - it seems that men are more in need of that tribal identification with a group than women are.
Or maybe it's simply that many more men than will admit to it enjoy watching hot men get sweaty
If you discriminate based on race, you're cutting off a certain percentage (varying by country) of the talent pool. Stupid.
If you discriminate based on gender, you're cutting off ca. 50% of the talent pool. Really stupid.
You don't need to invoke lofty principles to argue against discrimination.
The supply/demand issue doesn't really have much to do with discrimination.
>Yea, there was a Ruby workshop I was interested in attending; but seems it was only open to women.
There are tons of Ruby workshops. Look at the gender distribution in most of them. 90% male? 95% male? 99?
> If they felt men as a gender would be disruptive then that should be handled on an individual basis regardless of gender,
I have no idea what you meant to say, but what you said does ont make any sense.
> even then I find it hard to believe that it'd be a widespread issue.
If you find the gender imbalance (and some of the nastier aspects of that) in IT not to be a widespread issue, you're either
* wilfully blind
* stupid beyond belief
* incredibly blessed to work in a balanced environment.
> As it stands, women probably have a far greater opportunity advantage from Diversity Quotas, Gendered Scholarships, and Classes
That's an opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. But given that we don't have hordes of female junior programmers - it's probably wrong.
Did I say probably? I meant certainly.
> lsu many of the complaints can be attributed to the female dominated HR field;
Oh, yes, it's HR stopping people from hiring all these female programmers because they're too darn pretty! HR can't handle the competition!
Either that, or you don't actually get *any* CVs from women. Ever.
Have you ever been a hiring manager? I've spent 20+ years (*) in IT. I've worked with 4 female developers. Two of which I had to hire as mathematicians (they were, but they could also code).
> which has shown that women in HR will not hire other women they consider to be prettier then themselves.
Citation, please - or did you just make that up on the spot? Logically that would imply the HR department is populated by the ugliest people you can find that are still qualified to do the job. That's not even true in Dilbert/
(*) Look at my user id. And then get the HELL off MY lawn. (**)
(**) Before you get the hell of my lawn, please try and take the time to talk to someone of the female persuasion and ask how they feel in all male meetings, or if that's too tough, just google "programmers being dicks". THEN get the hell of my lanwn.
You don't 'calculate' a measurement. Measurements often require some mathematics, but it's the incorrect verb. Calculations are theoretical.
The argument that the poor carriers are being bombarded by all this data (when our endpoint bandwidth is much less than other places in the world) is completely absurd. It's not because the internet wasn't "designed" for video, it's because competition hasn't spurred more development by the carriers. They've been living on capital rents.
This piece is naive in the extreme: it assumes implicitly that the only players are major content providers, carriers, and "consumers", and never speakers, telecoms, and citizens.
What I find problematic with that mode of argument is that it tends to turn McCarthyite very quickly. Castro attempted to cut a deal with the US before going to the Soviets, he is rather less committed to communism than either his supporters or his opponents believe. He also gave the CIA the location of Che Guavera when he decided he was a liability. So there has been a basis for cooperation for a long time.
The list of crimes committed by US Presidents panicking about communism is very long. Snuffing out a democracy in Iran to replace it with a bloodthirsty dictator, supporting the Khumer Rouge after Vietnam ejected them, installing Pinochet, a mass murderer in Chile. George W Bush just managed to cause the deaths of a half million Iraqis and wonders why he isn't being praised for his efforts.
The problem isn't capitalism of communism, the problem is authoritarianism and elites who believe that brute force is the solution to every problem. Castro is a thug and a murderer but its the US who set up a torture chamber in Cuba.
Since the US government has been spending a large amount of money to get the Internet into Cuba, giving them a pipe and letting them rip with it seems like the best way forward. They will try to control it but everyone knows that Cuba is going to liberalize in the near future.
The logical way forward would be for the US to lift the blockade and let the commerce flood in. The communist system would collapse pretty quickly when there was money to be made. But the problem is that there is a faction that is less interested in bringing democracy to cuba as returning their assets that were nationalized. Since they stole the assets under the corrupt Batista regime, there aren't going to be many interested in that happening.
The Dutch government is very clear about not being a haven for drug dealers shipping to other countries. Unlike the US police, they don't spend time going after domestic pushers or users. But anyone who is shipping through the Netherlands to another country is in for serious grief.
>Hmm... perhaps their mistake was even dumber than simply believing tor is magic.
Magical thinking is very common in security. Lots of people think BitCoin is anonymous despite the fact the transaction log is public.
Call Tor services 'hidden' and some people think that means the NSA and GCHQ can't find them. Call them the 'dark Web' and they think its protected by Professor Dumbledore himself.
No, Tor is not compromised. Tor isn't really designed to protect the privacy of Web Sites. Tor is designed to protect the privacy of Web Site users.
If you have a server that is visible to any client on the Tor network then either the server IP itself must be visible to an exit node put up by Law Enforcement or an intermediary node that is directly conspiring with the server has to be visible to law enforcement.
That is just a basic limitation of onion routing. A client can hide because it gets to choose the entry node. A server can't hide because anyone can set up an exit node.
This illustrates one of the big problems with computer security, people want to believe that security claims are true so they tend to be very gullible. They often rely on claims being made about a product by people talking about it on Web sites rather than the people who built it. And note I said 'rely'. Taking note of someone saying 'steer clear, this is why' on a Web site is very different to following the advice of people playing the pied piper.
There are lots of people who are convinced that Bitcoin is anonymous. This despite the fact that every transaction is public and every wallet tracks every one of them. The BitCoin people don't like hearing that their scheme might not be the future of currency or that it really isn't very different from e-Gold or GoldAge or Liberty Reserve which the FBI had no trouble rolling up. Take a look at the comments on my Bitcoin podcast, not a single substantive comment from a BitCoin supporter. Just a regurgitation of the ideology as fact:
I think this is coming close to the endgame for BitCoin. The FBI might be nervous about the influence that the Winkelvoss twins and other rich supporters of BitCoin might be able to buy (but Senators probably don't take bribes/campaign contributions in Bitcoin). So the logical tactic to make them radioactive would be to arrest them too.
Funny how an ideology that holds the government is an oppressive freedom destroying force can be self-fulfilling. But Bitcoin can't possibly survive when LE believes that the vast majority of Bitcoin transactions involve drugs or kiddie porn or gambling. And I see no evidence to the contrary.
Now, you're not playing the game!
I get to reply next with my 5 digit id, and only then do you post with 4 digits. To be later trumped by a 3....
By getting in so early, you've left me nowhere to go!
Isn't this called search engine spamming, and several publishing outfits have been doing it for about a decade, with varying degree of success?
Or two. And a job chairing a new oversight committee for the intelligence services.
An annotated game record is available here:
Symbolics machines had the key well before Microsoft even talked about ripping off DOS
The serviceable 16 bit CP/M clone was the Holy Grail for every geek in his garage who saw the potential of the 8086. What the geek didn't have was a full suite of programming languages ready to port and the resources to build on the launch of the new IBM micro,
Except Gary Kildal who famously refused to sign the IBM NDA on the advice of his wife going surfing instead. Microsoft then bought MSDOS 1.0 from one of said garage geeks. But all they needed it for was to be undetected long enough to be able to sell MSBasic while they worked on a clone.
The Windows key was appearing on DEC keyboards before it was a Windows thing. And that is from Symbolics as many of the DEC engineers were Symbolics graduates. And when DEC crashed, Microsoft bought up most of the talent. Given the state of Apple at the time, it was pretty much the only option if you hated UNIX.
I am surprised that nobody has brought up a pathetic piece of bought-by-lobbyists research 'the fable of the keys' written by a couple of K-street hacks for an organization calling itself 'the independent institute'. This tried to claim that path dependence and network effects don't exist. Microsoft funded the 'study' while they were fending off the anti-trust suit.
One of the examples that the authors tried to expose as 'myth' is that Dvorak was more efficient. And they do actually have some evidence to suggest that the studies on efficiency are unreliable. But that does not prove their case. All it actually shows is that the Navy realized that there was no point in performing further tests because they were not going to switch from Qwerty regardless of what the result was. A 10% improvement in typist productivity was not worth the cost of retraining. Many typists would refuse to be retrained. Nobody would want to learn a keyboard that was only used in the Navy under a program that might be cancelled at any moment.
The same goes for their effort to 'prove' that VHS was better than Betamax. Like the idiots trying to disprove evolution, they don't make their case and all they do is to show that things are a little more complex than the naive version of the theory they are attacking suggests. The point of VHS and Betamax is that what made a VCR better than a competitor was not picture quality, it was how many movies you could buy and watch on it.