I think you missunderstood this event, we think in France that the religion is personnal and that you should not force other people in your religion when you're in school (it's public school where 90% of the students are). So you're not allowed to show distintive sign of your religion when you're in school it includes headscarf, kipa, cross... In the same way you're not allowed to critic in public any religion when you're in school.
Really? Tell me something then. Do you have to go to school on Christmas Day in France? Do schools force Catholic children to eat meat on Fridays during Lent? If not, what you have in France is pure religious discrimination, not tolerance.
Telling a Muslim girl she is not allowed to wear a headscarf in school is equivalent to telling a non-Muslim teenager she may not wear a shirt to school. It is an issue of modesty, and forcing someone from a culture that requires a very modest dress code to break it is like telling someone from your culture or mine that they are not allowed to wear clothes.
Similarly, making Jewish boys remove their yarmulkes is *forcing* them to disobey the laws of their religion. But since no one is forcing any Christians to commit blasphemy, you can pretend you're being fair.
I teach web development classes to lots of women. I find that they easily get frustrated with software in a short period of time. I believe this is a result of women primarily deriving their logic from emotions and men primarily deriving their emotions from logic.
Ah, I see we're resorting to 19th-century stereotypes to explain gender differences again. "Women derive their logic from emotions"? Come on, be realistic. How hard can it be to realize that people's emotional lives and their professional lives are not the same thing, and frequently are not even related?
I readily admit that when it comes to emotions, I'm not as logical as most men I know (though this isn't true for all women). I'm more likely, in a relationship, to be the one who starts crying in the middle of an argument for no good reason and has to be calmed down. I don't know if it's socialization, biology, or just my birth control pills. But hey, my boyfriend and I can handle a little irrationality in our relationship.
But my emotions do not affect my professional life. I can go home/back to work from an emotionally exhausting day and write a history paper, design a newspaper page, or install my new ethernet card, and my emotions are simply not relevant. Sure, if I get frustrated about a relationship I'm in, I'll act irrational, cry, and call my friends for support. But if I get frustrated during a hardware installation, I read the manual, swear, try a different slot, and troubleshoot until the damn thing works.
A lot of women get frustrated too easily by technology because they think it's too hard. Similarly, my very intelligent geek boyfriend gets confused and annoyed if I ask him to scrub a potato. But these traits are learned, and they can be unlearned.
Unless, of course, people like you keep perpetuating archaic stereotypes about how it's just natural that women are only concerned with emotion, not logic.
In Quark 4.0 for Windows, the equivalent command (I think that's Ctrl-Shift-Alt-k) makes the box you're killing melt and flow down the screen, with gurgling sound effects. It's not nearly as cool as the alien in the Mac version, though, and as far as I can tell there's no second effect after killing four (or more) boxes. Too bad.
The alien trick is always the first thing I teach people at work when they learn Quark (I work at a newspaper), and it was the people from Baseview who came in to set up our NewsEdit installation who showed us the second alien in Quark.
But hey- they just 'neutralized' the comments- that means they balanced them out right? I mean there must have been tons of positive user comments as well right?
No disagreement on the sheer stupidity of eBay's removal of M$ products, but isn't there a chance that all those comments got "neutralized" because no one bothered to refer to an item number in their comments? It IS possible that eBay has a problem with negative comments that aren't tied to a specific auction, since there's a chance the grievance won't be legit.
1) One guy decides he has a personal problem with using the web to transfer info, so now no one will be able to access the LofC texts online.
The worst of it is, he says that since electronic text will never be as good as reading a book, no one should be reading books in electronic form. Unless he is worried people would rather read books on screen than in print, there's no logical reason to prevent them from doing so. God forbid that the Library of Congress would trust people to judge for themselves what constitutes a satisfying reading experience. Idiots like this guy give a bad name to *real* librarians, who actually believe in the freedom of information.
Women really need to come up with a term they want to be refered to as in casual conversation.
What women need is to pay attention to the difference between words and what is meant by them. My German ex-boyfriend referring to 'chicks' because he had a hard time pronouncing the 'r' in 'girls' is not offensive. Some redneck saying that women's work is cooking, cleaning, and making babies, however, is highly offensive.
I have no problem with Katz, or anyone, referring to me as a chick, if s/he doesn't actually hold sexist views. I do, however, have a problem with Katz giving me some lame, commercialized label like "chickclicker" just because I'm female and use the Internet. So does every other person I know who is under 30.
If Katz wanted to write about *real* demographic change on the Net, he would write about senior citizens -- people like my grandfather, who is 78, who bought an iMac and learned how to use e-mail so he could write to me and my cousins.
But of course he wouldn't do something like that. It might make sense.
Evidently the original "hick" post had been removed by the time I checked Slashdot. The plain English version was funny - I sent a copy to my mom to see if she believes it. So now I want to see what I missed - was it really THAT bad? Please, someone, post a copy of the first appearance of the article.
You shoulda picked a different university. You're the customer of the University as a student, not an employee or a subcontractor or a product or anything else that could vaguely be construed in a work-for-hire context.
Not if you live in a country where university education is free and provided by the government... if you have the test scores to get in. Why do you think so many Europeans go to the U.S. for college?
Of course that sort of contract is wrong in any case. But in the U.S., I'm not sure it's legal, and it it is, it still wouldn't be tolerated. What CS student would choose to go to a school like that?
My point is that *most* people are not on the net and don't have an email address outside the tech hub areas. Sure AOL has dial up points just about everywhere. Want DSL or cablemodem speed access and don't live in a tech zone? Forget it. The net is still a toy or "entertainment" or a diversion for the kids.
Bismarck, North Dakota, where I live, has DSL and cable modem services. The online version of our newspaper is read regularly by snowbirds (retired North Dakotans who spend winters in warmer climates).
My mom, who teaches fifth grade in a rural Oklahoma town (about 30 miles from the next medium-sized city), says at least half of her students have e-mail addresses and Net access, and she wants me to help her set up a Web site with math information and homework assignment listings.
Rural doesn't mean out of touch. Do some research on modern farming - a lot of it includes online supply purchasing and price checking. Rural areas, much more so than cities, depend on the Internet to stay in touch. Sure, they're less likely to get DSL access in smaller markets, but don't call the Internet a 'toy' for rural America. It's a vital tool for news, communication and shopping for people who *don't* live near large cities.
our society seems to be blind to the fact that, men & women are DIFFERENT. Statistically, we *DO* think differently. The generalization about women being more for details, men being more for abstract thinking is true as a STATISTIC, not a rule.
The problem is that our society's continual focus on these statistical and probably genetic differences just reinforces culture-based differences, which are also real.
Two examples:
I learned Basic on the C=64 and Logo on the Apple//e in grade school. I studied college-level calculus when I was 12. When I was in high school, I got an A in AP Physics and and regularly set the curve in my AP Calc class. And when I graduated from high school, *I still wanted to be a housewife*. I thought I would be better suited to that kind of life, even though I'm a terrible housekeeper and am no good with children.
My mom is a smart woman. She's a National Merit Scholar with a master's degree, who had no problem with calculus in college (or any other subject). But she won't learn how to program a VCR, because it's "too technical." She says it's "men's work."
The kind of cheap pop-psychology explanation you and dozens of others are propagating on/. for why women don't get into technology as much as men do has done more to harm women than it has to explain anything useful. You keep telling girls that they're genetically inclined to learn arts and humanities, and they will keep doing so.
Not to mention that trying to study CS with a bunch of guys who think women are no good at it is somehow unappealing to most women.
What I can't seem to understand is when we all made the assumption that there were lots of things on the net that children need to be shielded from. Exactly what is it you think is out that that's so objectionable that you don't think your children should be able to view it?
The issue is not whether we - you, me, Slashdot readers in general - assume that children need to be protected from certain things on the net. The issue is whether parents in general have a right to decide what their children need to be protected from. I'm not saying I agree with most parents' decisions, but it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them what's OK for their children to watch.
When I was 12, my parents wouldn't let me watch Monty Python's Meaning of Life, because of the sexual content. I think that was pretty pointless on their part, but I respected their decision and their authority over my viewing materials.
The point is, it's not a library's job to decide which materials are OK for children to view, it's the parents' job, even if the parents are overprotective and paranoid. If a library has separate terminals for children and adults, and requires that children have their parents' permission to use the adult terminals, they're not censoring anyone.
A woman with the integrity to rail on another woman for being racist and trying to justify it with the gender card. That just made my day!
Funny that while you appreciate her attitude, you insult her at the same time by implying that most women WOULD be willing to "justify racism with the gender card."
I won't even get into the "political correctness" comment. It's already too obvious that you're fighting straw men.
If you unlock her door for her, you're sending the message that you're looking for a chivalrous-model relationship, rather than an equitable, friends relationship. In not opening the door for you, the woman is simply going along with what you seem to indicate that you want.
Why would unlocking someone's door constitute chivalry? It's simple courtesy for the person who is driving to unlock the passenger's side door first. And there's no reason the guy has to drive.
I like a man who opens doors for me - and who doesn't give me funny looks when I open doors for him. What's wrong with that?
Still, why does a sexual situation nessisarily hurt a child?
There is a difference between a child voluntarily, in private, engaging in sexual acts (for instance, with another child or alone), and an adult exploited said acts for the purpose of pornography.
It's natural for children to have sexual desires and to explore them; it is not natural for adults to interact sexually with children, because there is an inherent imbalance of power.
If a 13-year-old boy fantasizes about girls his own age, it's normal. If a 50-year-old man preferentially fantasizes about 13-year-old girls, something is wrong with him, because that kind of behavior indicates a need to dominate and abuse his sexual partners.
The bottom line is that child porn is not about children wanting to explore their sexuality. It's about adults who should damn well know better, exploiting children and using them to fulfill their own needs, with no respect for the child's mental or emotional stability. Is every child harmed by every sexual situation? No. But it's a risk no adult should ever take. That's what's wrong with child porn.
Most people just say "sans" to sound educated, like they read Shakespeare.:)
Journalists use "sans" because it's three characters shorter than "without." If you'd ever had to write a 2-column headline in 72-point Helvetica Black, you'd know what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missunderstood this event, we think in France that the religion is personnal and that you should not force other people in your religion when you're in school (it's public school where 90% of the students are). So you're not allowed to show distintive sign of your religion when you're in school it includes headscarf, kipa, cross... In the same way you're not allowed to critic in public any religion when you're in school.
Really? Tell me something then. Do you have to go to school on Christmas Day in France? Do schools force Catholic children to eat meat on Fridays during Lent? If not, what you have in France is pure religious discrimination, not tolerance.
Telling a Muslim girl she is not allowed to wear a headscarf in school is equivalent to telling a non-Muslim teenager she may not wear a shirt to school. It is an issue of modesty, and forcing someone from a culture that requires a very modest dress code to break it is like telling someone from your culture or mine that they are not allowed to wear clothes.
Similarly, making Jewish boys remove their yarmulkes is *forcing* them to disobey the laws of their religion. But since no one is forcing any Christians to commit blasphemy, you can pretend you're being fair.
I teach web development classes to lots of women. I find that they easily get frustrated with software in a short period of time. I believe this is a result of women primarily deriving their logic from emotions and men primarily deriving their emotions from logic.
Ah, I see we're resorting to 19th-century stereotypes to explain gender differences again. "Women derive their logic from emotions"? Come on, be realistic. How hard can it be to realize that people's emotional lives and their professional lives are not the same thing, and frequently are not even related?
I readily admit that when it comes to emotions, I'm not as logical as most men I know (though this isn't true for all women). I'm more likely, in a relationship, to be the one who starts crying in the middle of an argument for no good reason and has to be calmed down. I don't know if it's socialization, biology, or just my birth control pills. But hey, my boyfriend and I can handle a little irrationality in our relationship.
But my emotions do not affect my professional life. I can go home/back to work from an emotionally exhausting day and write a history paper, design a newspaper page, or install my new ethernet card, and my emotions are simply not relevant. Sure, if I get frustrated about a relationship I'm in, I'll act irrational, cry, and call my friends for support. But if I get frustrated during a hardware installation, I read the manual, swear, try a different slot, and troubleshoot until the damn thing works.
A lot of women get frustrated too easily by technology because they think it's too hard. Similarly, my very intelligent geek boyfriend gets confused and annoyed if I ask him to scrub a potato. But these traits are learned, and they can be unlearned.
Unless, of course, people like you keep perpetuating archaic stereotypes about how it's just natural that women are only concerned with emotion, not logic.
In Quark 4.0 for Windows, the equivalent command (I think that's Ctrl-Shift-Alt-k) makes the box you're killing melt and flow down the screen, with gurgling sound effects. It's not nearly as cool as the alien in the Mac version, though, and as far as I can tell there's no second effect after killing four (or more) boxes. Too bad.
The alien trick is always the first thing I teach people at work when they learn Quark (I work at a newspaper), and it was the people from Baseview who came in to set up our NewsEdit installation who showed us the second alien in Quark.
But hey- they just 'neutralized' the comments- that means they balanced them out right? I mean there must have been tons of positive user comments as well right?
No disagreement on the sheer stupidity of eBay's removal of M$ products, but isn't there a chance that all those comments got "neutralized" because no one bothered to refer to an item number in their comments? It IS possible that eBay has a problem with negative comments that aren't tied to a specific auction, since there's a chance the grievance won't be legit.
1) One guy decides he has a personal problem with using the web to transfer info, so now no one will be able to access the LofC texts online.
The worst of it is, he says that since electronic text will never be as good as reading a book, no one should be reading books in electronic form. Unless he is worried people would rather read books on screen than in print, there's no logical reason to prevent them from doing so. God forbid that the Library of Congress would trust people to judge for themselves what constitutes a satisfying reading experience. Idiots like this guy give a bad name to *real* librarians, who actually believe in the freedom of information.
Women really need to come up with a term they want to be refered to as in casual conversation.
What women need is to pay attention to the difference between words and what is meant by them. My German ex-boyfriend referring to 'chicks' because he had a hard time pronouncing the 'r' in 'girls' is not offensive. Some redneck saying that women's work is cooking, cleaning, and making babies, however, is highly offensive.
I have no problem with Katz, or anyone, referring to me as a chick, if s/he doesn't actually hold sexist views. I do, however, have a problem with Katz giving me some lame, commercialized label like "chickclicker" just because I'm female and use the Internet. So does every other person I know who is under 30.
If Katz wanted to write about *real* demographic change on the Net, he would write about senior citizens -- people like my grandfather, who is 78, who bought an iMac and learned how to use e-mail so he could write to me and my cousins.
But of course he wouldn't do something like that. It might make sense.
Evidently the original "hick" post had been removed by the time I checked Slashdot. The plain English version was funny - I sent a copy to my mom to see if she believes it. So now I want to see what I missed - was it really THAT bad? Please, someone, post a copy of the first appearance of the article.
You shoulda picked a different university. You're the customer of the University as a student, not an employee or a subcontractor or a product or anything else that could vaguely be construed in a work-for-hire context.
Not if you live in a country where university education is free and provided by the government ... if you have the test scores to get in. Why do you think so many Europeans go to the U.S. for college?
Of course that sort of contract is wrong in any case. But in the U.S., I'm not sure it's legal, and it it is, it still wouldn't be tolerated. What CS student would choose to go to a school like that?
My point is that *most* people are not on the net and don't have an email address outside the tech hub areas. Sure AOL has dial up points just about everywhere. Want DSL or cablemodem speed access and don't live in a tech zone? Forget it. The net is still a toy or "entertainment" or a diversion for the kids.
Bismarck, North Dakota, where I live, has DSL and cable modem services. The online version of our newspaper is read regularly by snowbirds (retired North Dakotans who spend winters in warmer climates).
My mom, who teaches fifth grade in a rural Oklahoma town (about 30 miles from the next medium-sized city), says at least half of her students have e-mail addresses and Net access, and she wants me to help her set up a Web site with math information and homework assignment listings.
Rural doesn't mean out of touch. Do some research on modern farming - a lot of it includes online supply purchasing and price checking. Rural areas, much more so than cities, depend on the Internet to stay in touch. Sure, they're less likely to get DSL access in smaller markets, but don't call the Internet a 'toy' for rural America. It's a vital tool for news, communication and shopping for people who *don't* live near large cities.
our society seems to be blind to the fact that, men & women are DIFFERENT. Statistically, we *DO* think differently. The generalization about women being more for details, men being more for abstract thinking is true as a STATISTIC, not a rule.
The problem is that our society's continual focus on these statistical and probably genetic differences just reinforces culture-based differences, which are also real.
Two examples:
I learned Basic on the C=64 and Logo on the Apple //e in grade school. I studied college-level calculus when I was 12. When I was in high school, I got an A in AP Physics and and regularly set the curve in my AP Calc class. And when I graduated from high school, *I still wanted to be a housewife*. I thought I would be better suited to that kind of life, even though I'm a terrible housekeeper and am no good with children.
My mom is a smart woman. She's a National Merit Scholar with a master's degree, who had no problem with calculus in college (or any other subject). But she won't learn how to program a VCR, because it's "too technical." She says it's "men's work."
The kind of cheap pop-psychology explanation you and dozens of others are propagating on /. for why women don't get into technology as much as men do has done more to harm women than it has to explain anything useful. You keep telling girls that they're genetically inclined to learn arts and humanities, and they will keep doing so.
Not to mention that trying to study CS with a bunch of guys who think women are no good at it is somehow unappealing to most women.
What I can't seem to understand is when we all made the assumption that there were lots of things on the net that children need to be shielded from. Exactly what is it you think is out that that's so objectionable that you don't think your children should be able to view it?
The issue is not whether we - you, me, Slashdot readers in general - assume that children need to be protected from certain things on the net. The issue is whether parents in general have a right to decide what their children need to be protected from. I'm not saying I agree with most parents' decisions, but it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them what's OK for their children to watch.
When I was 12, my parents wouldn't let me watch Monty Python's Meaning of Life, because of the sexual content. I think that was pretty pointless on their part, but I respected their decision and their authority over my viewing materials.
The point is, it's not a library's job to decide which materials are OK for children to view, it's the parents' job, even if the parents are overprotective and paranoid. If a library has separate terminals for children and adults, and requires that children have their parents' permission to use the adult terminals, they're not censoring anyone.
A woman with the integrity to rail on another woman for being racist and trying to justify it with the gender card. That just made my day!
Funny that while you appreciate her attitude, you insult her at the same time by implying that most women WOULD be willing to "justify racism with the gender card."
I won't even get into the "political correctness" comment. It's already too obvious that you're fighting straw men.
If you unlock her door for her, you're sending the message that you're looking for a chivalrous-model relationship, rather than an equitable, friends relationship. In not opening the door for you, the woman is simply going along with what you seem to indicate that you want.
Why would unlocking someone's door constitute chivalry? It's simple courtesy for the person who is driving to unlock the passenger's side door first. And there's no reason the guy has to drive.
I like a man who opens doors for me - and who doesn't give me funny looks when I open doors for him. What's wrong with that?
Still, why does a sexual situation nessisarily hurt a child?
There is a difference between a child voluntarily, in private, engaging in sexual acts (for instance, with another child or alone), and an adult exploited said acts for the purpose of pornography.
It's natural for children to have sexual desires and to explore them; it is not natural for adults to interact sexually with children, because there is an inherent imbalance of power.
If a 13-year-old boy fantasizes about girls his own age, it's normal. If a 50-year-old man preferentially fantasizes about 13-year-old girls, something is wrong with him, because that kind of behavior indicates a need to dominate and abuse his sexual partners.
The bottom line is that child porn is not about children wanting to explore their sexuality. It's about adults who should damn well know better, exploiting children and using them to fulfill their own needs, with no respect for the child's mental or emotional stability. Is every child harmed by every sexual situation? No. But it's a risk no adult should ever take. That's what's wrong with child porn.
Journalists use "sans" because it's three characters shorter than "without." If you'd ever had to write a 2-column headline in 72-point Helvetica Black, you'd know what I mean.