* Posts by h4rm0ny

4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Russia appears to be 'live testing' cyber attacks – Former UK spy boss Robert Hannigan

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: The best defense

Aaaaand that's why we don't want the USA to control the world's DNS.

18
4

Scissors cut paper. Paper wraps rock. Lab-made enzyme eats plastic

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: It is just me that's noticed.....

I refuse to believe these tales of sweets that cost half a pence. Surely that would be below the minimum transaction free of your debit card.

4
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Water fountains.

Most plastic I buy is plastic drink bottles. If shops and public places had water fountains I could just fill up my flask and cut my purchased drinks down to a fraction.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Also has echoes of Zodiac by Neal Stephenson.

So have we just invented rust for plastic?

3
0

Mind the gap: Men paid 18.6% more than women in Blighty tech sector

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Worthy cause...

You make an unsupported leap when you say it demonstrates women are not given the same opportunities as men. This is your hypothesis, it's not something the data demonstrates. And what is more, we have a lot of reasons we know that contribute that don't depend on lack of opportunity. You're not only guessing the reason, you're also guessing where there are known reasons.

As to why not give women a turn to 'dominate', we're not rival football teams. We're individuals. NOTHING in this area should be determined on the basis of sex.

Shame on El Reg for this clickbait, shallow article, as well.

24
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: apples with oranges again

There's a reason for that, Wilseus. The Register switched much of its writing and focus over to Silicon Valley. It's not really British any longer. They kicked out Lewis Page for vague and unspecified reasons (but basically editorial policy) and they've been pushing a particular political angle ever since.

It's the main reason I and others have stopped coming here so often.

23
1

Yay, it's power play day: Conaway prays USA says 'no way' to Huawei

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Doesn't the NSA already track everything?

There's an important difference between the Chinese spying on you and the US / UK spying on you. If you break a law, engage in a protest, say something unapproved or affiliate with people your government doesn't like - the Chinese wont give the slightest fuck about it. Whereas ours will be paying you a visit shortly.

7
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Huawai killed Marconi

The company or the Italian? Because I thought the company was killed by gross mismanagement by Lord Simpson.

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Fake news!

This is about protectionism. Huawei was approaching finalization of a deal with a large US carrier (rumoured to be AT&T). This has been in the works for a long time. In the UK market it is not quite as important to have a network agreement but in the USA phones are overwhelmingly sold locked as part of a package deal. If you're not a partner of one of the big players, you're small fry.

The deal has fallen through because the Trump administration intervened. The Trump administration is much more protectionist.

Huawei have been assessed by both UK and US experts for spyware and no evidence has ever been found (in contrast to when the USA installed firmware spyware on a large number of harddrives sent to China some years back, as it happens). Huawei have provided hardware to BT in the past and received the GCHQ go-ahead.

Sites like Stratfor attribute this to Trump's 'America First' trade policies and determination to bring jobs back to American soil. The Register seems to either have no awareness of the wider context or simply doesn't wish to question the US govt. line. Either way, this is very weak journalism.

0
0

PowerShell comes to MacOS and Linux. Oh and Windows too

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: binary pipelines

And I'll say the same thing to you as on the previous occasion. You have missed the point. I could write a cmdlet called `stat` for Windows very easily that would do exactly the same. For ANY given example of a script I can create a program that will do that.

I showed a comparison between pipelining in Bash and in Powershell and showed how object pipelining is simpler than text mangling. Using a program like stat does not illustrate text mangling. It illustrates a prepared macro that does the same. Which is trivially doable on Windows, as well. I'm comparing text mangling vs. objects not whether a sequence of pipelines can be replaced by a program. That is true of either OS.

1
7
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: binary pipelines

>>A shell with binary object pipelines, merely shows what we already knew. That Microsoft do not grok the power and simplicity of text based protocols and that "everything is a file" approach.

My inclination is to treat the above as humour. However, you continue on so I'm going to reply just in case it isn't. Text mangling is NOT "simplicity". Anything but. You have to change later steps in the pipeline when previous steps change. E.g. the output of `ls` and `ls -l` yield the same list of files but different textual output. So if the output is piped to other commands they must be cognizant of any changes. It's anything but simple, it's brittle and fiddly. If you pipe an array of file OBJECTS to the next tool, there's no text mangling required.

And because an illustration is useful, here's getting the list of file owners in BASH vs. Powershell:

Bash

ls -l | awk '{print $3}'

Powershell

DIR | Get-Acl | Select-Object Owner

Acl means "Access Control Layers" which is something anyone working with Windows at this level will know. Bash requires working with textual output. Powershell is all objects: Directory listing to get the ACLs to select the owner attribute. Very logical, very robust. The awk example will break if you try to feed it a file list from somewhere else (or even without the -l flag).

Lets get more complex. Suppose I want not the current directory but a recursive tree. In Powershell it becomes this:

DIR -Recurse | Get-Acl | Select-Object Owner

Very simple change. I just add the recurse flag and the rest remains the same. Lets add one more tweak and have it select unique owner list:

DIR -Recurse | Get-Acl | Select-Object Owner | Select -Unique

All I did was pipe it to a unique filter. Simple.

Now you might think that the Bash equivalent would be this:

find ./ -exec ls -l {} \; | awk '{print $3}' | sort | uniq

But you'd be wrong. Why? Because of the issue I talked about. `ls -l` is returning textual output, not an array of objects. And it throws in a summary line at the foot of each directory it traverses. My awk component which is downstream is now doesn't take care of everything. I need to add something to filter out certain parts of the text that have content. So something like this:

find ./ -exec ls -l {} \; | awk '{print $3}' | grep . | sort | uniq

The point is with text (which you think is simpler), you actually have more interdependencies between the components you're piping between than in Powershell where it's all clean objects.

You have two components in the above (awk and grep) which are there purely to compensate for the fact that Bash is using text rather than objects. It's not simpler, it's anything but. And the more complex the script, the more brittle a reliance on text makes it.

9
6
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: PowerShell?

>>Why do people compare Powershell to bash?

Seems to be mostly GNU/Linux users who need to assert that their OS is better than another. Command Line has historically been a notable differentiator between GNU/Linux and Windows. And so its arcane spells and incantations became a badge of superiority over dialogue boxes and configuration wizards - because if you need to be smarter to use it, that shows it's the tool for smart people. *ahem*

When Microsoft looked at Bash and said: "You know, if we can make this a bit less idiosyncratic and do it in a modern way, it would be pretty useful to us, too" it was like Steve Balmer had personally mugged Brian Fox at gunpoint to these people. (Even though as you point out, Powershell and Bash have basic, conceptual differences). It became vital to prove that Powershell, despite being newer and benefiting from building on everything that came before it, was inferior to Bash. Because otherwise GNU/Linux gurus couldn't point at a pile of (unsigned, downloaded from the web) scripts and say: "See! Better!"

>>It's a very capable scripting language, but an appalling shell

Well it's not really a shell. I fire up ISE (Integrated Scripting Environment) which comes as standard on Windows rather than the basic Powershell interface and it works great as a shell for me. (Only time I use the other interface is if I'm CLI'ing in Python or something and I need stdin style interaction).

>>You're better off comparing it to node or python.

By language design, yes. But it's so handy for sysadmins managing Windows systems that it occupies the same user space as Bash.

5
16
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Pint

Re: PowerShell?

Yes. I'm very sorry. Full attribution to The Vogon for that list. I had it floating around from a previous discussion. Sorry about that - I did credit you last time I posted it but I seem to have lost it this time. Mea Culpa.

It's a good list. Pint as apology!

6
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: " from top to bottom Windows is"

>>"No. Windows is still mostly a C API, which is not object oriented. It also has some C++ and COM APIs, which are object oriented, but which are not .NET objects. Powershell requires its wrappers over all of them."

No. Windows HAS a C API (and others). But pretty much every setting and configurable option in the OS is exposed as an object for use by Powershell.

>>And frankly, I'd prefer to call a COM API than a .NET one. It doesn't require a specific VM, a JIT, and a framework just to call a function - and you can call it from many more languages and scripts.

It's the 21st Century. It's okay to use languages that don't require an explicit compilation step. We're discussing Powershell vs. Bash. None of the above is relevant in a comparison of the two.

5
16
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: PowerShell?

Powershell is far superior to Bash and I call BULLSHIT on your suggestion that Bash is superior. The only problem with Powershell is a GNU/Linux environment is that GNU/Linux is not an Object Orientated environment whereas from top to bottom Windows is. Therefore Powershell can use it's far more advanced capabilities whereas on GNU/Linux it's stuck using the same kludgy approaches as Bash.

You claim to have used both. Well I have to. Here's a short list of some of the things I can do in Powershell that I can't do in Bash. Oh - and syntactically it's more consistent and intelligent, too.

1) Object oriented pipes so that I don't have to format and reparse and be concerned about language settings.

2) Command metadata. PowerShell commands, functions and even *script files* expose metadata about the names, positions, types and validation rules for parameters, allowing the *shell* to perform type coercion, allowing the *shell* to explain the parameters/syntax, allowing the *shell* to support both tab completion and auto-suggestions with no need for external and cumbersome completion definitions.

3) Robust risk management. Look up common parameters -WhatIf, -Confirm, -Force and consider how they are supported by ambient values in scripts you author yourself.

4) Multiple location types and -providers. Even a SQL Server appears as a navigable file system. Want to work with a certain database? Just switch to the sqlserver: drive and navigate to the server/database and start selecting, creating tables etc.

5) Fan-out remoting. Execute the same script transparently and *robustly* on multiple servers and consolidate the results back on the controlling console. Try icm host1,host2,host3 {ps} and watch how you get consolidated, object-oriented process descriptions from multiple servers.

6) Workflow scripting. PowerShell scripts can (since v3) be defined as workflows which are suspendable, resumable and which can pick up and continue even across system restarts.

7) Parallel scripting. No, not just starting multiple processes, but having the actual *script* branch out and run massively parallel.

8) True remote sessions where you don't step into and out of remote sessions but actually controls any number of remote sessions from the outside.

9) PowerShell web access. You can now set up a IIS with PWA as a gateway. This gives you a firewall-friendly remote command line in any standards compliant browser.

10) Superior security features, e.g. script signing, memory encryption, proper multi-mode credentials allowing script to be agnostic about authentication schemes which may go way beyond stupid username+password and use smart cards, tokens, OTPs etc.

11) Transaction support right in the shell. Script actions can join any resource manager such as SQL server, registry, message queues in a single atomic transaction. Do that in bash?

12) Strongly typed stripting, extensive data types, e.g first class xml support and regex support right in the shell. Optional static/explicit typing. Real lambdas (script blocks) instead of stupidly relying on dangerous and error prone "eval" functions.

13) Real *structured* exception handling as an alternative to outdated traps (which PowerShell also has). try-catch-finally blocks.

14) Instrumentation, extensive tracing, transcript and *source level* debugging of scripts.

15) Consistent naming conventions covering verb-noun command names, common verbs, common parameter names.

27
44

Cisco can now sniff out malware inside encrypted traffic

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Yes, there are concepts for that...

No, I get what they're saying. They're not arguing that it's not possible to spread knowledge of how to beat the extra layer of security easily. They're saying that if you stand out from the crowd in terms of security, you'll be in that group that people don't bother going to the extra effort for. Like how there is a tonne of malware for Windows but less (at least the user-focused kind) for GNU/Linux. It's not because GNU/Linux can't be compromised it's because why go to the extra effort to get a few more systems when you're best directing your efforts to the large majority. If you have "Security Level 11" and everyone else has "Security Level 10", you've effectively created your own little microcosm of the same effect.

The worthwhileness of spreading around and implementing that extra knowledge only applies if the security measures are spread around and implemented. Otherwise it's extra work for small gain.

1
0

Cryptocurrencies to end in tears, says investor wizard Warren Buffett

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Who really does understand them?

Warren Buffet is very smart, very experienced and knows a lot more about investment and the economy than anybody who is likely posting here. It's outrageous arrogance for El Reg to be pronouncing on Buffet's lack of understanding. Especially given they seem to be misrepresenting Buffet saying "I don't fully understand this" to "will all end in tears".

People saying Bitcoin et al are no different to the US dollar because neither are backed by physical wealth miss that the US dollar IS backed by two very important things: as the national currency you can pay US taxes in it. And the US tends to bomb any country that calls into question its value (Libya I'm looking at you).

15
1

Memo man Damore is back – with lawyers: Now Google sued for 'punishing' white men

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Why am I instead reading strawman arguments in The Register instead of fact-based articles?

>>Why does The Register carry so many strawman arguments on this issue?

It didn't use to. But I notice that these days writer's bylines keep reading "San Francisco". Didn't use to.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"I'm not prepared to share it with some bigoted misogynistic bro arsehole."

The problem being that you're talking about firing someone for not agreeing with you preferentially selecting by sex. Or for voting for a different political party than you (see his court filing listing many of the emails that were flying around insisting he be sacked before someone leaked the memo to make it happen).

You can't just point at someone, call them a "bro" and fire them. Well, not in Europe anyway.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @h4rmony @Kristian Walsh

>>No, you're wrong there. I didn't mention the details of the leak because I simply wasn't aware of it.

In that case, I withdraw my statement saying you're deliberately ignoring facts. But I hope you see it as reasonable that I thought that - this is a key fact openly available. As you were pronouncing rather confidently on why Damore was fired, I figured you must have known the details. I respect you being open to changing your mind.

>>I used the word "nerdy" without meaning it to be pejorative, by the way. I meant an office culture where it's considered desirable to spend all hours coding, to the exclusion of other activities.

Well that's kind of Damore's point in which case you're at least somewhat in agreement with him. He argues (with support) that women are in general less inclined to work jobs where they're just coding away all the time. But Google creates policies on the assumption that its coders should naturally reflect general population. If you create policies based on a wrong assumption...

>>On the other end, we have Identity Politics, probably the most horrible, divisive concept of recent decades

And I agree with that. And I expect Damore would as well. Respectfully, I think if you re-read the memo and some of his court filing (which goes into the environment in Google in some detail) with an honest, open mind, I think you might find it has more merit than you originally thought. The Identity Politics that you despise appears to be endemic within Google to the point that it is systematic in actual policy. Which is what Damore is objecting to.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: How to leak information...unintentionally

They didn't write "agnostic", they wrote "antagonistic". They're saying they just hate every political side.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am confused

I'm not sure if you genuinely don't understand or if you are, as I suspect, simply determined that I must be wrong. To extend the benefit of the doubt one last time:

It very much does have to do with sexism. I provided good quality primary data showing that computer classes have higher female participation in sexist countries than they do in less sexist ones. I even helpfully directed you to examples of both countries as the data set is large. The reason for this is because in these more sexist countries, women have less career choice. You're less able to become a doctor or a lawyer or a manager, etc. When choice is restored, e.g. Sweden, you find participation drops because more often than not a female student will pursue a career other than a purely technical one.

The first are well-demonstrated facts. The conclusion is directly derived. If you again try to shift ground or dispute this, then I don't believe you're arguing honestly.

8
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am confused

>>That is unfortunately true in both USA and UK. It is significantly less true elsewhere. The gender ratios in STEM in continental Europe with the notable exception of physics are reasonably sane.

STEM is not the subject. That covers academic research, sciences in general, teaching STEM subjects. The subject covered by Damore is explicitly tech jobs of an engineering kind - programming, chiefly. Even there he draws a distinction between front-end work and back-end work because there's another significant gap there. You'll find the gender ratio is a lot more heavily slanted towards men amongst Sysadmins than those creating GUIs. The contention is not that men are more capable as sysadmins, but that in general men are more likely to put up sitting in a frozen maze of server racks talking to a screen all day.

We have to stay off broadening into "STEM" as a whole because it misleads. For example, women are OVER-represented in teaching STEM, iirc.

You're factually wrong, when you say it's a more "sane" ratio on continental Europe. See the link I posted elsewhere. Countries that score extremely highly in the Gender Development Index still have ratios far from that of the general population. Sweden has 30% female in computer classes. And that's high-ish. New Zealand has 20% and Canada 24%. And of those, many women will on graduation take it towards teaching or a related administrative or managerial role associated with their degree. Contrast that with Guyana (54% female computer class participation) or Zimbabwe (41%).

All this supports the conclusion that necessity increases female participation in programming, not choice.

>>That is one area where women are better than men - we get that from our simian ancestry. Women are significantly more adept in maneuvering a social situation so that they do not need to deal with an arsehole

Anecdotal but I am terrible with people. Also, "arseholes" are sometimes necessary. Singular leadership and a measure of punitiveness by an authority figure can be more productive than a tendency to prefer consensus by default. Elevating consensus to be an inherent good can be very destructive to a group's success.

8
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am confused

>>This is a very strange claim? Is there a source for that or is it made up?

Thank you so much for the accusation. Here are sources you can review. Rather involved, but you're welcome to check my conclusions through the figures:

http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/vgalpin1/ps/Gal02a.pdf

http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GDI

To get you started, you can compare countries that are very low on sexism such as Sweden, New Zealand and Canada against some that score badly on the Gender Development Index (I would suggest Thailand, Guyana, Iran, Zimbabwe if you don't have any prepared subject area). And with this comparison you can see that these least sexist countries actually do worse.

It seems like an odd idea to you because your preconception is that women are held back from computing and advanced countries should hold women back less. In fact, what is happening is that these MORE sexist countries are blocking careers like doctors, management, law, etc. whilst the LEAST sexist countries do not. The greater freedom of opportunity in these less sexist countries leads to women choosing other careers over programming, typically.

As to your vague suggestion that I should look at "official figures", I hope you now see that I actually have a passable knowledge of what I'm talking about.

11
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am confused

Okay - you're working in places where discussing politics or religion are explicitly grounds for a reprimand? This is some serious bullshit you have to contend with. Never would I work at a place where I was forbidden to discuss current affairs or history with my friends and colleagues. Combining this with your 50:50 gender split, there's something very atypical about these jobs you're talking about.

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am confused

That an astonishing ratio. I've worked in places I didn't find sexist in any meaningful way and there was nothing like a 50:50 gender ratio amongst programmers in any of them. Do you mind identifying the field we're talking about, and which country you're from? We're ARE talking programming jobs here? Front end or back end?

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Blind auditions

It didn't "plummet". It was around 8%. But that's sufficient to be significant and more than sufficient to show there wasn't bias against women in hiring. There was a similar but smaller effect for racial minorities.

Link

It's blackly amusing reading the foreword trying to downplay the conclusions and subtly argue for the body's continued funding.

4
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @h4rmony @Kristian Walsh

>>"Before going any further, though, I will say that I find it very hard to believe that he was fired just for writing this document."

People have often been fired due to a public witch-hunt. Hell, do you remember those two programmers at Pycon who were fired because Adria Richards was sitting in front of them and overheard one make an innocuous joke about "dongles" and tweeted to her 12,000 followers a photo of them saying sexism 'not okay' and accusing them of creating an atmosphere hostile to women? I do - because she single-handedly made women in tech everywhere look like humourless bigots in one afternoon. It was eventually and partially cleared up but it's a good example of how a company can and will throw an employee under the bus if that employee is being targeted online for racism / sexism / whatever. You're very wrong to think that he couldn't be fired for this memo. It went public. He was promptly fired. It was, based on documented emails from other employees saying they wanted to get him fired, likely leaked with that aim. You're dismissing this because you want to, not because it isn't sound.

>>Dismissing a permanent employee is not something that any company (even an American one) does lightly - it often, as in this case, ends up with both the employer and employee in court

And has done. But in the court filing, one of the emails points out that Damore and the others are employed "At will" which is common in the USA and it points this out specifically to highlight that these employees can be fired with little risk. The USA has fewer protections for employees than most of Europe.

>>This document is one part of a bigger story, and none of us know the whole story yet, but my suspicions are that it's a story in which Damore may not be the hero.

My contention is that you base this on your dislike of his memo rather than a reading of the court filings which I am now on page 27 of.

>>I didn't make any comment one way or the other on gender representation, but Damore's point about never achieving a 50/50 balance is a straw-man argument

50% is not randomly picked. It more or less corresponds to the proportions in wider society and which Google uses to assess their own diversity. He argues that it will never be 50% because he's arguing that it will never match the general population. This is a key part of his argument which you must understand. He's saying that you can't use the general population as your determiner for what is a "correct" diversity ratio in your technical hires. There's no strawman. It's the point of his argument.

>>These policies aren't looking to pass over men and replace them with women - that's an example of the "zero-sum" thinking I criticised

He cites several programs that are discriminatory to men. Some of them are innocuous (imo) such as outreach programs to encourage young women to enter tech. I have been involved in such efforts myself. Others are far more insidious such as hiring practices that lower the bar for certain groups, diversity targets for departments which incentivise preferential hiring and promotion. So you're incorrect. Policies DO exist that pass over men in favour of women.

>>I believe he is deliberately misrepresenting a policy of preferring minority candidates who meet the requirements for a position, as one where such candidates get the job without meeting the requirements.

I find it hard to credit that you can write this without seeing anything wrong with it. Policies that prefer candidates based on racial or sexual identity are wrong. And yes, I understand the distinction you are trying to draw between meeting the requirements and not. It's wrong. Also, highly hypothetical. And also contradicted by having diversity targets that inevitably is going to lead to overlooking weaknesses in the candidates from the desired group.

>>At the end of the document, he has his list of "recommendations": this is where he makes his pitch for what the ideal solution will be. And when you look at it, it's just a rollback of measures Google has taken to stop its workplaces being so hostile to people who aren't nerdy white men.

Well, setting aside the pejorative language in your last paragraph (and also that it's men in general), what is wrong with rolling back discriminatory measures? It's you that think that these policies are what stops Google being so hostile to men. Based on everything he's cited from the culture, that doesn't seem likely. Further, the policies don't 'prevent the workplace being hostile to women'. They introduce a discrimination in favour of women. It's on you to prove that any of the policies he recommends changing lead to "hostility to women" because I don't see it.

>>"But that doesn't stop this memo being a poorly argued whinge about having to share the the office with people who see the world differently to him."

Damore's memo plainly isn't that at all. And I'll support that by simply linking to it for anyone to read: Link

8
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: difference of opinion is not the same as calling management as incompetent

Yes. Sundar Pichai actually got a lot of grief online for not condemning Damore enough, which is worth mentioning. I think your analysis is spot on.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: I am confused

I think there is an element of chicken and egg. I think it's less to do with role-models and more to do with the fact that at 14 you find yourself having to choose whether to go into a class with all your friends or be one of three girls amongst approx. 20 boys. (My experience).

However, there has been a LOT of effort to increase the number of women in tech. One of the interesting observations in Damore's memo which addresses your point is that the disparity in tech INCREASES with career opportunity for women. I.e. in poorer countries where there's greater pressure to work and provide for yourself, gender ratios in tech are more even. This is also true in the USA historically where women were well represented in the emerging field of computers. What Damore concludes from these examples are that women are just as capable as men at programming but that as society opened up other careers to women that had previously been closed (doctors, lawyers, managers), career-minded women tended to pursue these.

A credible case is made that reduction in career sexism in the USA has DECREASED the number of women programmers because women could always pursue a programming career (many early programming pioneers were women) but were formerly excluded from these other careers. That lends support to his view that there is a significant biological preference in general rather than it being primarily education and role-models.

10
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I am confused

Lewis Page is, as I understand it, legally prevented from discussing his departure. But it was abrupt and he didn't leave for another position elsewhere as would be normal if it were voluntary. He was immediately trying to find other work. And there was an accompanying political slant that appeared in El Reg. around the same time. So I'm reading between the lines, but I think that writing is pretty clear.

7
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: 2 Points

Someone leaked the memo and it was highly unlikely to be Damore himself. Quite a lot of people within Google were able to access it. Thousands, I believe, if they chose to be involved in that particular diversity group. However, I'm not aware they've ever been identified and seen little to no interest in discovering it (if that were even possible). From the court filing it seems there is no shortage of possible culprits. Multiple emails and comments are cited from Google employees who said they would "try to get him fired."

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Where are the women in tech jobs?

The important thing people keep dropping from Damore's works is "on average" and "in general". At no point does he comment on or exclude individuals based on their sex. That is critical.

It's okay to say men or women tend towards different things (if you can support that). It becomes discrimination when you say "you are this sex therefore you the individual must do such."

7
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Where are the women in tech jobs?

>>"On the other hand, if your recruiters are calling 50 new graduates a day, that's how many candidates you get. What difference does it make if they call the women first?"

Depends if you're one of the men and you lose out to someone less qualified than you because of your sex. And it would be the same the other way around, to be clear.

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: difference of opinion is not the same as calling management as incompetent

Damore didn't publish the memo. It was maliciously leaked to create a circumstance in which he'd be fired. And the memo board he did publish it was specifically soliciting opinions on diversity in Google. You accuse him of trying to cast himself as a "doomed whistleblower" but in fact feedback was encouraged and going public was not by his choice.

7
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Muslims, like everyone else, can choose what they wish to do. If a muslim wants to go the bar, the only person stopping them is themself. I don't accept that Allah is telling them they can't even if they believe He is. They don't have to drink, either. I'm a vegetarian. I'll still go out to restaurants where my friends are eating meat.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: So they want the right to express discriminatory views?

Well firstly, the memo is not discriminatory. Secondly, they have never objected to anyone else expressing views. They objected to things like being fired and held back because of their views.

So it's not really the hypocrisy you paint it as.

7
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I'm a woman and I would not have a problem ruling in Damore's favour if his case is correct. I reject Identity Politics and it's rather patronising to assume that a judge would decide based on some arbitrary "team" they're told they're a part of, whether that be sex, race or orientation.

You oppose prejudice against your group. That is fair and right. But it doesn't mean you seek to disadvantage someone else on theirs.

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @Kristian Walsh

I wouldn't thank them. I would instead read the memo yourself. It's not long and it's been linked just a few comments above. To pick just one example of Kristian Walsh's misrepresentation they say that:

>> From the get-go, by denouncing every program to change it, he takes as given that the current status-quo is the best possible in the tech industry

No. He doesn't say that nor is it a logical inference from what he says. He says that enforcing a goal of 50:50 representation is flawed because it assumes a natural 50:50 break down in available qualified candidates. And that Google has created discriminatory programs designed to bring this about. His argument that hiring should be merit based and allowed to find whatever natural balance comes about through people's choice of what careers to pursue is very different to stating "current status quo is the best possible" as Kristian tries to present it above.

With fewer qualified female candidates than male (demonstrated amply in his memo by referencing university figures), hiring policies designed to bring about 50:50 ratios inevitably manifest as unequal treatment of men and women by the company itself.

8
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Oh the misleading...

I woud say less "personality issues" and more "didn't fit the group think". The court filing depicts a very politicised atmosphere in Google that affected multiple people. And not simply asserting that but providing numerous examples of it. It's a class action suit, rather than solely about him.

In any case, he has been turned into such a hate-figure - and the media has helped with that - he will probably never have a normal career again.

7
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Punishing discrimination is not discrimination

No. But it assumes he was being discriminatory and having read both his memo and substantial parts of this court filing, I don't think he was and has in fact been the real victim of discrimination. He was unquestionably fired for his views, not any action. And his views were not discriminatory. He was very clearly advocating a merit-based approach rather than race / sexuality approach that Google demonstrably is using.

8
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: and not based on their individual merits?

Are you always against former employees suing for wrongful dismissal? Or just in Damore's case?

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: and not based on their individual merits?

>>You'd think he'd be able to find a job based on his "merits".

Really? Any company that hires him will be set upon by online hate campaigns. You know this is the case. So why snarkily suggest he's unemployed because he lacks skills.

5
3

Russia claims it repelled home-grown drone swarm in Syria

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: RE: "the missile to fly upside down it would immediately crash"

That's entirely plausible. I don't have the knowledge to say otherwise. But the book I reference I'm fairly certain describes it as physically tipping the V1 over with your wing. It could be wrong. Or maybe both were done.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

We're not at war with Russia, you know. (Despite the best efforts of the USA). And Russia have done more to combat ISIS in Syria than we have so... why not?

6
4
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: RE: "The thousands of German V1 attacks on southern England"

Fun and amazing fact: although British pilots were instructed to shoot down the V1s., their gyroscope ceased working if inverted. That is to say that if you could get the missile to fly upside down it would immediately crash. British pilots would sometimes fly alongside the missile and get their wing under its fin and flip it over.

Interesting book that mentions this: Empire of the Clouds by James Hamilton-Paterson. (No, I'm not touting the book and no connection. Amazon's just the easiest link).

16
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Russian tech hacked by Russians?

Governments generally have a pretty good idea of who their weapons are reaching. Which is a very different thing from publicly admitting it or it being done legally. And when weapons end up in "the wrong hands", it's as often simply a matter of time and shifting allegiances than error. Arms dealers are VERY aware of who governments will be okay with them supplying and who will get them into a very nasty situation.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Russian tech hacked by Russians?

You're suggesting the Russians are bombing themselves. Quite frankly we know the CIA are present in Syria and have been supplying expertise and equipment to Al Quaeda and similar there. Western assistance to build these is not remotely implausible.

6
4
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

A low-tech device that does the job is better than a high-tech device that does the job for one simple reason: For the price of a single US$500,000 device, you can get thousands of cheap ones.

If you can build a model plane out of balsa wood and a cheap motor with enough range, that's what you do. Besides, the sophisticated part of these was the guidance systems which aren't shown in these pictures.

10
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018