The point of the ".01% of comments" argument is not to justify those comments, but to illustrate that sexism does not seem to be integral to FOSS. The same argument can be made using your 10% black argument; if 10% of FOSS developers are black, and only 1% of comments or discussions have racist overtones, it can be safely assumed that racism is not an integral part of the FOSS movement.
Of course there are sexists involved in FOSS, just as surely as there are racists, homophobes and any other type of bigot one can imagine. FOSS is made up of the whole, world-wide body of people who choose to participate; there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a neo-Nazi who wants to upload the mp3 player s/he just wrote.
The author of the article, on the other hand, is making FOSS sound like an organization whose leaders are specifically not allowing women to participate. When the only thing necessary to participate is a computer, an internet connection and the will to program something that will be distributed for Free*, the concept that anyone at all can be kept out against their own will is patently ridiculous.
Maybe women aren't by-and-large attracted to FOSS. Maybe there are social pressures that discourage it. Maybe women who ARE interested find it more difficult to join a particular project because the people who run that project are, themselves, sexist. None of these things are even remotely reminiscent of the intrinsic sexism that was present in, say, 19th and 20th century business. It's a hell of a lot easier to start your own project fork on github or freshmeat than to break into an industry where your clients are as likely to be sexists as your competition.
Anyway, even if there are sexists involved in FOSS (pretty much guaranteed, as is any other form of bigotry), the fact that they exist does NOT indicate an "industry prejudice".
how in the hell is the wording of the tenth amendment vague? "if the constitution doesn't say the feds can do it, and doesn't say the states CAN'T do it, then it's the states responsibility, not the feds'"
I'm constantly amazed by a given person's willful inability to READ what is WRITTEN. Everybody thinks that there's got to be some hidden message. There IS NO "General Welfare Clause". It's the "Taxing and Spending Clause", (article 1, section 8, clause 1) which outlines how the feds are allowed to collect taxes. Section 8 then goes on and defines what topics the feds are allowed to regulate, and finishes up with the "Necessary and Proper Clause" which says "Congress gets to make all the laws it needs to fulfill the FOREGOING POWERS".
I'm getting away from the Libertarian camp, mainly because free markets can only work in situations that aren't natural monopolies. Lots of infrastructure falls into the natural monopoly segment, therefore cannot be adequately served by the free market.
having said that, President Washington hit the nail on the head with his farewell address:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
I don't know enough about the health industry to categorically state that the Feds have no business in it. I don't really trust private enterprise with my health, for the simple fact that there's a lot more money in treatment than in prevention or cure. I CAN, with a simple reading, state that the Feds have no right to meddle with it until a Constitutional Amendment has been passed giving them the right to do so. It really doesn't take a huge leap of faith, you just have to read the big C without trying to make it say things it doesn't say..
Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?
Isn't that what almost EVERY SINGLE big wig from EVERY SINGLE industry in the country has been doing for decades? people only pay attention to economics when the statistics are in their favor. Otherwise they do everything in their power to change what are, effectively, almost immutable laws of human nature.
The First Amendment also guarantees public airways to be censorship free, since the Feds can't pass laws abridging the freedom of expression. That doesn't seem to have stopped the FCC from pushing the Moral Agenda, though..
The US ruled the 20th Century because it was the only major country that survived WWI & II relatively unscathed. Depression and War are fantastic excuses for Federal largess, unfortunately it's not so clear that it's actually helped us in the long run.
So, what the Feds did was say to the states, "Any state that doesn't raise it's minimum drinking age to 21 forfeits federal highway funding." The supreme court said "you can't do that; since choosing not to agree to the proposition is infeasible, it amounts to coercion." Then the Feds said, "Fine, SC, how 'bout 'any state that doesn't raise it's minimum drinking age to 21 forfeits 5% of federal highway funding?" and the SC said, "yeah, that's cool..."
The 'pedia says 10%, I swear i read 5% somewhere, but whatever. For what it's worth, I utterly detest the fact that the federal government seems to think a person is competent enough to choose the leaders of the nation, or die defending their country, but can't be trusted with a bloody glass of wine at dinner...
See, that's the great thing about our "centuries old constitution". the framers knew they hadn't licked everything, so they stuck in Article 5 and said, "Yeah, so, if we forgot anything, this is how you put it in..."
Thing is, we haven't been playing by the rules. Which is fucking depressing when you are playing a game that lets you to change the rules whenever the hell you want.
people always bring in "the general welfare" clause. Read the text (Hint: it's not in the Preamble).
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 1
Everybody says this little piece gives the Legislature the right to provide for the general welfare. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It gives the Legislature the right to collect taxes, provided they're for the common defense or general welfare. "Common Defense" is defined through Cl. 12-16, same section, defining the right to form an Army, Navy, and Militias. "General Welfare" is not defined anywhere. Hence, "General Welfare" as a separate concept is non-existent.
All the greedy little bastards need to do is pass an amendment defining general welfare and us pig-headed Libertarians will have to shut the fuck up. But do they do it? No. They don't. Personally, I think it's just because they're assholes, and they like thumbing their collective noses at us. "Neener, neener, we don't have to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, but if you don't pay your parking tickets we're going to lock your ass up!"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The so called "right to privacy," is a generalization of the 4th Amendment. Your "right" is with regards to the government, not the guy with binoculars in the apartment complex next door...
in the admin account, you don't only get UAC warnings when performing an admin task. you also get them when performing a "potentially harmful" task, like running a program from a cd. in the standard account, you ONLY get UAC warnings when you need to elevate privs, hence the fewer warnings.
* UAC - annoying and not remotely secure. People will be trained to always click yes, or just disable it. Further more, it prevented me from installing legit software, and copying files in certain directories.
You know, I work in the on-site computer services industry, and I've obviously been getting more and more jobs with Vista. I hear this complaint all the damn time, from clients and from coworkers/other professionals, and I just don't bloody understand it. The really obnoxious "Cancel/Allow", "Continue?", "Are you sure?", "I really don't think you should do that..." boxes are really only a consideration if you're using the administrator account. you know, that thing that Unix/Linux advocates have ridiculed Windows users for for (at least) a decade?
I'd say one of the things I actually LIKE about Vista is that they've finally fixed the crap that made Limited User Accounts in XP completely unusable, and made the admin account so obnoxious i thought it would virtually guarantee Standard account usage..apparantly i was wrong.
As for the other half of the sentence, it's about f-ing time they started enforcing directory and file-structure policies on users! have you ever tried to recover files on a dying hdd for a windows user?
"ok, where are the files we need to recover?"
"what do you mean?"
"well, the files that are important to you. what folders are they in?"
"i don't know."
"ok, what programs do you use regularly?"
"Office and pictures"
So you grab the user folder, then it turns out that they also use quicken/quickbooks (which stores data files in the Program Files folder, for some ungodly reason), and all their pictures are in a folder called "important stuff" buried in the windows root directory...
EVERY time I set up a Vista machine for a client I create a limited user account, explain the benefits over the admin account, and install some piece of software so I can show them the dialog box that comes up when you need to elevate privs. I do the same if I'm restoring a Vista machine that's hosed..
I used to be a pretty emphatic Linux user, and I switched to macs at home for day to day use when the 2nd gen mac mini came out, but I work on Windows machines all day at work. There are some pretty annoying things about Vista (Point taken on Start Menu scrolling and performance. as dumb as it sounds, I really miss the Desktop Cleanup Wizard from XP. handy for those people who have 50k icons on their desktop that they've NEVER clicked on.. Anyone know if they just moved it in Vista?), but UAC (when Standard Accounts are being utilized) and strict file structure policies really aren't in that group, AFAIC.
because I agree with you whole-heartedly (voted Bruce Guthrie for Senate out here in WA), but I had to show ID three different times when flying from Iowa to WA when I moved up here: Ticket Agent, Security Check Point before departure gates and another Security Check Point at my connecting flight.
except that it's not. when you buy a computer they try to sign you up for internet services. when you say yes you're asked to swipe your credit card FOR THE SERVICE. if that weren't a big enough bell, WHILE the swipe machine is asking you for the card, it explicitly states that if you don't cancel within the trial deadline they will autobill you for the first month's service. IIRC, the wording is something like "by signing below, I agree to be automatically billed for service after my 15-day trial expires."
I have no sympathy for people who refuse to read; if you're responsible enough to own a credit card, you should be damn well responsible enough to know what you're signing.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the ".01% of comments" argument is not to justify those comments, but to illustrate that sexism does not seem to be integral to FOSS. The same argument can be made using your 10% black argument; if 10% of FOSS developers are black, and only 1% of comments or discussions have racist overtones, it can be safely assumed that racism is not an integral part of the FOSS movement.
Of course there are sexists involved in FOSS, just as surely as there are racists, homophobes and any other type of bigot one can imagine. FOSS is made up of the whole, world-wide body of people who choose to participate; there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a neo-Nazi who wants to upload the mp3 player s/he just wrote.
The author of the article, on the other hand, is making FOSS sound like an organization whose leaders are specifically not allowing women to participate. When the only thing necessary to participate is a computer, an internet connection and the will to program something that will be distributed for Free*, the concept that anyone at all can be kept out against their own will is patently ridiculous.
Maybe women aren't by-and-large attracted to FOSS. Maybe there are social pressures that discourage it. Maybe women who ARE interested find it more difficult to join a particular project because the people who run that project are, themselves, sexist. None of these things are even remotely reminiscent of the intrinsic sexism that was present in, say, 19th and 20th century business. It's a hell of a lot easier to start your own project fork on github or freshmeat than to break into an industry where your clients are as likely to be sexists as your competition.
Anyway, even if there are sexists involved in FOSS (pretty much guaranteed, as is any other form of bigotry), the fact that they exist does NOT indicate an "industry prejudice".
how in the hell is the wording of the tenth amendment vague? "if the constitution doesn't say the feds can do it, and doesn't say the states CAN'T do it, then it's the states responsibility, not the feds'"
I'm constantly amazed by a given person's willful inability to READ what is WRITTEN. Everybody thinks that there's got to be some hidden message. There IS NO "General Welfare Clause". It's the "Taxing and Spending Clause", (article 1, section 8, clause 1) which outlines how the feds are allowed to collect taxes. Section 8 then goes on and defines what topics the feds are allowed to regulate, and finishes up with the "Necessary and Proper Clause" which says "Congress gets to make all the laws it needs to fulfill the FOREGOING POWERS".
I'm getting away from the Libertarian camp, mainly because free markets can only work in situations that aren't natural monopolies. Lots of infrastructure falls into the natural monopoly segment, therefore cannot be adequately served by the free market.
having said that, President Washington hit the nail on the head with his farewell address:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
I don't know enough about the health industry to categorically state that the Feds have no business in it. I don't really trust private enterprise with my health, for the simple fact that there's a lot more money in treatment than in prevention or cure. I CAN, with a simple reading, state that the Feds have no right to meddle with it until a Constitutional Amendment has been passed giving them the right to do so. It really doesn't take a huge leap of faith, you just have to read the big C without trying to make it say things it doesn't say..
Do these law degree holding people really think you can ignore basic economics and not expect anyone to realize it?
Isn't that what almost EVERY SINGLE big wig from EVERY SINGLE industry in the country has been doing for decades? people only pay attention to economics when the statistics are in their favor. Otherwise they do everything in their power to change what are, effectively, almost immutable laws of human nature.
The First Amendment also guarantees public airways to be censorship free, since the Feds can't pass laws abridging the freedom of expression. That doesn't seem to have stopped the FCC from pushing the Moral Agenda, though..
The US ruled the 20th Century because it was the only major country that survived WWI & II relatively unscathed. Depression and War are fantastic excuses for Federal largess, unfortunately it's not so clear that it's actually helped us in the long run.
It's not the taxes, it's using them for unconstitutional means. Article I Section VIII says nothing about "promoting the general intertubes..."
So, what the Feds did was say to the states, "Any state that doesn't raise it's minimum drinking age to 21 forfeits federal highway funding." The supreme court said "you can't do that; since choosing not to agree to the proposition is infeasible, it amounts to coercion." Then the Feds said, "Fine, SC, how 'bout 'any state that doesn't raise it's minimum drinking age to 21 forfeits 5% of federal highway funding?" and the SC said, "yeah, that's cool..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act
The 'pedia says 10%, I swear i read 5% somewhere, but whatever. For what it's worth, I utterly detest the fact that the federal government seems to think a person is competent enough to choose the leaders of the nation, or die defending their country, but can't be trusted with a bloody glass of wine at dinner...
See, that's the great thing about our "centuries old constitution". the framers knew they hadn't licked everything, so they stuck in Article 5 and said, "Yeah, so, if we forgot anything, this is how you put it in..."
Thing is, we haven't been playing by the rules. Which is fucking depressing when you are playing a game that lets you to change the rules whenever the hell you want.
people always bring in "the general welfare" clause. Read the text (Hint: it's not in the Preamble).
Everybody says this little piece gives the Legislature the right to provide for the general welfare. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It gives the Legislature the right to collect taxes, provided they're for the common defense or general welfare. "Common Defense" is defined through Cl. 12-16, same section, defining the right to form an Army, Navy, and Militias. "General Welfare" is not defined anywhere. Hence, "General Welfare" as a separate concept is non-existent.
All the greedy little bastards need to do is pass an amendment defining general welfare and us pig-headed Libertarians will have to shut the fuck up. But do they do it? No. They don't. Personally, I think it's just because they're assholes, and they like thumbing their collective noses at us. "Neener, neener, we don't have to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, but if you don't pay your parking tickets we're going to lock your ass up!"
Quiet, you. We've always been at war with Eurasia..
The so called "right to privacy," is a generalization of the 4th Amendment. Your "right" is with regards to the government, not the guy with binoculars in the apartment complex next door...
in the admin account, you don't only get UAC warnings when performing an admin task. you also get them when performing a "potentially harmful" task, like running a program from a cd. in the standard account, you ONLY get UAC warnings when you need to elevate privs, hence the fewer warnings.
You know, I work in the on-site computer services industry, and I've obviously been getting more and more jobs with Vista. I hear this complaint all the damn time, from clients and from coworkers/other professionals, and I just don't bloody understand it. The really obnoxious "Cancel/Allow", "Continue?", "Are you sure?", "I really don't think you should do that..." boxes are really only a consideration if you're using the administrator account. you know, that thing that Unix/Linux advocates have ridiculed Windows users for for (at least) a decade?
I'd say one of the things I actually LIKE about Vista is that they've finally fixed the crap that made Limited User Accounts in XP completely unusable, and made the admin account so obnoxious i thought it would virtually guarantee Standard account usage..apparantly i was wrong.
As for the other half of the sentence, it's about f-ing time they started enforcing directory and file-structure policies on users! have you ever tried to recover files on a dying hdd for a windows user?
"ok, where are the files we need to recover?"
"what do you mean?"
"well, the files that are important to you. what folders are they in?"
"i don't know."
"ok, what programs do you use regularly?"
"Office and pictures"
So you grab the user folder, then it turns out that they also use quicken/quickbooks (which stores data files in the Program Files folder, for some ungodly reason), and all their pictures are in a folder called "important stuff" buried in the windows root directory...
EVERY time I set up a Vista machine for a client I create a limited user account, explain the benefits over the admin account, and install some piece of software so I can show them the dialog box that comes up when you need to elevate privs. I do the same if I'm restoring a Vista machine that's hosed..
I used to be a pretty emphatic Linux user, and I switched to macs at home for day to day use when the 2nd gen mac mini came out, but I work on Windows machines all day at work. There are some pretty annoying things about Vista (Point taken on Start Menu scrolling and performance. as dumb as it sounds, I really miss the Desktop Cleanup Wizard from XP. handy for those people who have 50k icons on their desktop that they've NEVER clicked on.. Anyone know if they just moved it in Vista?), but UAC (when Standard Accounts are being utilized) and strict file structure policies really aren't in that group, AFAIC.
because I agree with you whole-heartedly (voted Bruce Guthrie for Senate out here in WA), but I had to show ID three different times when flying from Iowa to WA when I moved up here: Ticket Agent, Security Check Point before departure gates and another Security Check Point at my connecting flight.
just wondering what airlines you're flying, mate.
except that it's not. when you buy a computer they try to sign you up for internet services. when you say yes you're asked to swipe your credit card FOR THE SERVICE. if that weren't a big enough bell, WHILE the swipe machine is asking you for the card, it explicitly states that if you don't cancel within the trial deadline they will autobill you for the first month's service. IIRC, the wording is something like "by signing below, I agree to be automatically billed for service after my 15-day trial expires."
I have no sympathy for people who refuse to read; if you're responsible enough to own a credit card, you should be damn well responsible enough to know what you're signing.
Do they still have armadillos in their pants?