At university we had about 15% female in the class and even that went down in the final year. But saying that, the women I’m speaking about aren’t doing development now but rather application deployment and UNIX training while most of the men are now in development type jobs.

I have often wondered why more women don’t enjoy/become enthusiastic about programming. Guess it will probably remain a mystery to me.

Yes, you are one of the women I mentioned. As for the “visible minority”: I was thinking of Jamal.

I don’t know why the world don’t have more women in computing but I am almost sure it is not the only field with a lack of women. One think I can say though is that there is only a slight percentage of people who start a bachelor degree who will graduated in the end. If you take into account that when I started mine, we were only 5 of 6 girls, the chance of having a lot of girls on your graduation picture is not big!

But it’s was not only in university, now that I recall it, because I choose programming as an option in secondary 4, I ended up in a class with 5 girls and 28 boys!

And if you want to bo back even more, the first time I saw a computer, it was because my second grade teacher (a woman) went out of her way to introduced us to computers even though our school didn’t have any yet.

I wonder why there are so few women who enroll in computer science classes? 5 vs. 28 makes for about 15%, which is still higher than I think the percentage of women in computing is in general.

I know of at least one development team with more than thirty people in it, with only one woman…

Well I’m sorry about this comment with a total lack of coherence written with my poor English skills…

Your english is fine

Thanks for the comment

If my memory is right, at one point, we had three immigrants in our team! But I can’t find who you are talking about when you said “visible minority”… strange!

I don’t know why the world don’t have more women in computing but I am almost sure it is not the only field with a lack of women. One think I can say though is that there is only a slight percentage of people who start a bachelor degree who will graduated in the end. If you take into account that when I started mine, we were only 5 of 6 girls, the chance of having a lot of girls on your graduation picture is not big!

But it’s was not only in university, now that I recall it, because I choose programming as an option in secondary 4, I ended up in a class with 5 girls and 28 boys!

And if you want to bo back even more, the first time I saw a computer, it was because my second grade teacher (a woman) went out of her way to introduced us to computers even though our school didn’t have any yet.

Well I’m sorry about this comment with a total lack of coherence written with my poor English skills…

It’s not prohibited to purchase or possess a circumvention device, and, as discussed, in the case of public domain works, it would not be prohibited from using the device.

“[Paragraph (b) of the definition of TPMs] doesn’t specify that the work still has be copyrighted, it is referring to the acts you can execute on copyrighted material.”

Even if that were true (and I don’t agree), for the purpose of circumvention it’s actually a moot point.

The bill classifies TPM distnct categories of TPMs: those described under paragraph (a) of the defintion (commonly referred to as “access controls”, as they control access to a work), and those described under paragraph (b) of the defintion (commonly referred to as “copy controls”, as they limit copying of a work).

Now, section 41.1 says:

“(1) No person shall … (a) circumvent a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition “technological protection measure” in section 41″

Note that the section only prohibits circumventing TPMs as described in paragraph (a) of the definition (access controls), and DOES NOT prohibit circumventing TPMs as described in paragraph (b) of the definition (copy controls). Consequently, there’s no legal prohibition on circumventing copy controls, whether the work is in the public domain or not.

So what’s so great about being able to use illegal tools?

Again I don’t think TPM suddenly doesn’t become TPM just because you own the copyright or because it is public domain.

(b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.

It doesn’t specify that the work still has be copyrighted, it is referring to the acts you can execute on copyrighted material.
“the doing of any act” so an action described in 3, 15, or 18.

I’m pretty sure just because you protected something public domain with TPM doesn’t mean that the TPM is magically not TPM anymore.

I think part (b) is meant to say that a TPM product does one of these things: it restricts one of these actions.

* Part (b) doesn’t say a TPM has to protect copyrighted material, part (b) is about what a TPM is.
* Then 41.1 says no personal shall circumvent a technological protection measure …
* Therefore circumventing TPM is circumventing TPM.

TonyClement_MP tweeted it is legal to own but illegal to use or distribute: http://twitter.com/TonyClement_MP/status/15419224665

Cant manuf, sell or use. But you CAN posess! RT @PSchammy Does #C32 make it illegal to posess/make software that ‘can’ break a lock?

So that’s his purpose, the bill might say something slightly different because he doesn’t seem to be much of an expert on it.

What’s the point of a lock breaker you can’t make, you can’t distribute, you can’t sell, you can’t use but you can have.

In most copyright assignment forms/contracts I have seen so far, copyright is assigned to the publisher, meaning the only thing that the creator of the work is left with is the moral rights over the work (which he could waive, but copyright assignment forms don’t usually include a waiver of moral rights). For articles published by the IEEE, I don’t think you’ve read their copyright assignment form thoroughly enough: when assigning copyright to the IEEE, you actually retain the right to reproduce the work in whole or in part (under the heading “retained rights/terms and conditions”):

1. Authors/employers retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.
2. Authors/employers may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the Work, material extracted verbatim from the Work, or derivative works for the author’s personal use or for company use, provided that the source and the IEEE copyright notice are indicated, the copies are not used in any way that implies IEEE endorsement of a product or service of any employer, and the copies themselves are not offered for sale.
3. Authors/employers may make limited distribution of all or portions of the Work prior to publication if they inform the IEEE in advance of the nature and extent of such limited distribution.
4. In the case of a Work performed under a U.S. Government contract or grant, the IEEE recognizes that the U.S. Government has royalty-free permission to reproduce all or portions of the Work, and to authorize others to do so, for official U.S. Government purposes only, if the contract/grant so requires.
5. For all uses not covered by items 2, 3, and 4, authors/employers must request permission from the IEEE Intellectual Property Rights office to reproduce or authorize the reproduction of the Work or material extracted verbatim from the Work, including figures and tables.
6. Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party requests for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use. The IEEE Intellectual Property Rights office must handle all such third-party requests.

In effect, you sign away your right to publish the same work elsewhere (e.g. with the ACM).

As for the reason why I didn’t include the case in which you decide to not self-produce/self-publish your work: the argument being made on Twitter and in the blogosphere at large was that by contracting TPM on your work you were signing away your copyright. The argument was not that by signing away your copyright you were signing away your copyright (which I hold to be self-evident).