This was something that happened in the 90s, but there was a prof I knew who would regularly tell women grad students that they would do better if they stayed at home and had kids. Including to one of the smartest people I have ever met on the planet. Meanwhile idiotic men enter the workplace without anyone ever suggesting that they're incompetent and would be better off doing housework.
And indeed, some women fall afoul of harassment rules at the workplace also. The whole point is to create a workplace where everyone can come in to work without worrying about the social environment, spend the day without hearing descriptions about physical attributes, not be called a prude because they don't want to hear the jokes, and so forth.
There is a bit more than that, what you said is just one part of what can constitute sexual harassment in the workplace. The other major facet is in creating a persistently hostile or uncomfortable workplace. You don't have to ever hit on someone or flirt, yet if every single day people are telling raunchy jokes or commenting on physical attributes, that is also harassment. This applies even when the person who's uncomfortable isn't a women. Calling a guy pussy-whipped constantly, or a nickname referring to genital size, and so forth. Not everyone automatically appreciates overhearing the penthouse forum lettters being read outloud. It can happen with women creating an uncomfortable environment for men as well.
(to be fair I know nothing about reddit, I only said it in a desperate search for approval)
I actually don't remember slashdot ever trending heavily young. It's always felt like an older crowd than the typical internet forum. Back when GrampaTaco started the thing up.
Someone posts this drivel, and yet some slashdotters still refuse to admit that there's a problem.
What does not wearing a bra have to do with anything; it is not a sign that someone wants to be hit on. And why are you trying to see if this person has a bra or not, what damned business is it to you? She is not there to be part of your entertainment. So if someone sees you're wearing boxers instead of briefs, you're sending the signal that I bunch of sweaty fat conference goers can come on to you?
I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for one comment. All the harassment training I've seen emphasizes that it is a pattern of harassment that gets one into trouble, or by creating a hostile or uncomfortable workplace.
Why aren't YOU at home taking care of the wife and children? It'd be a lot nicer at the workplace if the misogynists would just stay home.
Right now there are fewer women in my workplace than I've ever seen in my career. And it is most certainly not better. I'd like to see more women, it makes the workplace nicer and more professional instead of being just an extension of the locker room.
It is harassment if it continues after saying "no". You don't get disciplined or fired at work for flirting one time, you get fired for keeping at it. It's not just women, and not just some stereotype of feminists. There are men who get harassed by men, then laughed at if they complain. It's common sense: if it becomes uncomfortable for an employee to come to work because of the attitudes of their coworkers, then something is wrong and it needs to be fixed. Act professionally at work, it's that simple.
Ya, I'm getting $7 worth of entertainment. A bigger selection than my satellite subscription, except for the current shows. However the number of current shows I was watching had greatly shrunk. Plus I'm getting high def tv, even many of the old shows from the 60s are much clearer and crisper (those that were originally shot on film).
I was going to pay another $8 for Hulu Plus for some of the current shows now that the seasons have started up. Except that they're not showing Doctor Who despite the big press release last year that they were continuing to get the rights to the show (if I have to wait until the season is over, I may as well get it on Netflix!). That only leaves Walking Dead, and I doubt I'd pay $8/month just for one show.
Right some people misuse the internet so now it's ok in your mind to restrict it to only rich people. What about those poor people who actually do use the internet for good uses. Some do get education and use it to better themselves, some use it to organize neighbors in a voting campaign, some use it to broadcast problems in their neighborhoods. Don't forget many people need it just to communicate with various companies and services, such as their doctor, their bank, the government. Maybe you only use it for cat videos but smart people use it for a whole lot more.
I earned it by being lucky, being born middle class, having a college education and finding a good job. If internet is a luxury then your point has more validity. But internet rapidly becoming an essential service. Shouting at the bums to get a job never actually solved any problems.
This originally came about for universal service on phones. Without this subsidizing we would not even have had basic phone service in many parts of the US. Just like today some people say "poor people can just go to the library if they want the internet" or "farmers who want broadband should move to the city", in the past there were those who felt the same about telephones who though poor people could just head to the postoffice to make a call or rural people could drive to town.
This isn't socialism. The internet has grown enough so that it's no long merely a luxury for colleges and corporations, but is an increasingly necessary part of modern life, where access to basic services is becoming dependent upon the internet.
A lot seem to be concerned about usefulness for broad use, as in how will it fare for end points like mobile phones or wifi access. However even if it never becomes useful in that arena what I want to know is how it will fair for longer distance communications, for specific uses rather than mass market consumers. Places where point to point radio is currently being used, or possibly where wired connections at a lower speed are in use. 2.5m is not much but it's just early work, so if it can be extended then this would be good for backhaul links or used where wired connections are impractical or expensive.
It's ok, the internet rebooted itself shortly after imploding. Whether it is the same internet as before the big bang is still being debated by theoreticians.
Ukraine has never been a part of Russia though. It was a part of a Russian empire, and a part of USSR, but that's not at all the same as being a part of Russia itself. It was mostly a divided area of land ruled by a variety of other groups over its history, it's been a part of several non-Russian empires as well. It's a very complicated history but distinct from Russia.
Scotland on the other hand has been a part of the UK for 300 years. The English did not force a famine in Scotland, although Stalin did force a famine in Ukraine (yes I know about Ireland). Scotland actually has a referendum that appears to all intents and purposes to be legitimate under national and international law, it is not a quick rough shod referendum imposed by a small group that stole power at gunpoint.
Anyone trying to equate the Scotland referendum with the Ukrainian situation is hard to take seriously.
Probably not. The South would not have kept going with the slave system for much longer, it still had a very poor economy. A lot of today's grumbling in the South comes from the harsh reconstruction period rather than from any tyranny from the North from before the war. So if the South did secede the most they'd have to blame would be an economic isolation (not just from the other states, but probably from much of Europe). Without a brutal war there's no villain to point fingers at. There's also been some revisionist history over time that the war was not really about slavery but about a way of life, stuff like that. Without the war it's likely that over time southerners would realize how stupid slavery really was and that maybe the north was right about trying to restrict its growth.
The first shots were fired by the South though. Before the war, the southern states inded enjoyed a lot of self-determination. They weren't their own country but they certainly had plenty of major concessions, and a very sweet deal that gave slave states extra representation.
The straws that broke the camel's back so to speak, was refusal to expand the slave trade to US territories, and that Lincoln won the election without winning any southern state's electoral votes. Both of those essentially said that the south was losing political power (no new slave states meant the balance of power in Washington wouldn't favor them). Democracy is fine and all, as long as your vote has strong influence. But when a group finds themselves in a minority then democracy stops seeming as nice as it once was.
Many of these self-determination movements actually do seem to revolve around the idea of becoming the majority again or regaining some lost political clout, when there's no actual abuse or tyranny by the majority.
Why not give them some of the navy? Scots helped pay for it and helped build it, and Scots are serving in it. Banks aren't a problem, they don't have to be nationalized banks, just have private banks. The branches are already there and much of the deposits too I suspect. Setting up a national bank is harder but not insurmountable, they'll probably keep a joint national bank for awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Dont' forget supervisory harassment combinations of male->male and female->female, those also occur.
Management?
This was something that happened in the 90s, but there was a prof I knew who would regularly tell women grad students that they would do better if they stayed at home and had kids. Including to one of the smartest people I have ever met on the planet. Meanwhile idiotic men enter the workplace without anyone ever suggesting that they're incompetent and would be better off doing housework.
And indeed, some women fall afoul of harassment rules at the workplace also. The whole point is to create a workplace where everyone can come in to work without worrying about the social environment, spend the day without hearing descriptions about physical attributes, not be called a prude because they don't want to hear the jokes, and so forth.
There is a bit more than that, what you said is just one part of what can constitute sexual harassment in the workplace. The other major facet is in creating a persistently hostile or uncomfortable workplace. You don't have to ever hit on someone or flirt, yet if every single day people are telling raunchy jokes or commenting on physical attributes, that is also harassment. This applies even when the person who's uncomfortable isn't a women. Calling a guy pussy-whipped constantly, or a nickname referring to genital size, and so forth. Not everyone automatically appreciates overhearing the penthouse forum lettters being read outloud. It can happen with women creating an uncomfortable environment for men as well.
I'm here because it's not reddit.
(to be fair I know nothing about reddit, I only said it in a desperate search for approval)
I actually don't remember slashdot ever trending heavily young. It's always felt like an older crowd than the typical internet forum. Back when GrampaTaco started the thing up.
Someone posts this drivel, and yet some slashdotters still refuse to admit that there's a problem.
What does not wearing a bra have to do with anything; it is not a sign that someone wants to be hit on. And why are you trying to see if this person has a bra or not, what damned business is it to you? She is not there to be part of your entertainment. So if someone sees you're wearing boxers instead of briefs, you're sending the signal that I bunch of sweaty fat conference goers can come on to you?
I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for one comment. All the harassment training I've seen emphasizes that it is a pattern of harassment that gets one into trouble, or by creating a hostile or uncomfortable workplace.
Why aren't YOU at home taking care of the wife and children? It'd be a lot nicer at the workplace if the misogynists would just stay home.
Right now there are fewer women in my workplace than I've ever seen in my career. And it is most certainly not better. I'd like to see more women, it makes the workplace nicer and more professional instead of being just an extension of the locker room.
That's the simplest rule here, if people would follow it: don't be the creep.
It is harassment if it continues after saying "no". You don't get disciplined or fired at work for flirting one time, you get fired for keeping at it. It's not just women, and not just some stereotype of feminists. There are men who get harassed by men, then laughed at if they complain. It's common sense: if it becomes uncomfortable for an employee to come to work because of the attitudes of their coworkers, then something is wrong and it needs to be fixed. Act professionally at work, it's that simple.
Well, he *did* challenge some assumptions, and that's not smart on Slashdot...
Ya, I'm getting $7 worth of entertainment. A bigger selection than my satellite subscription, except for the current shows. However the number of current shows I was watching had greatly shrunk. Plus I'm getting high def tv, even many of the old shows from the 60s are much clearer and crisper (those that were originally shot on film).
I was going to pay another $8 for Hulu Plus for some of the current shows now that the seasons have started up. Except that they're not showing Doctor Who despite the big press release last year that they were continuing to get the rights to the show (if I have to wait until the season is over, I may as well get it on Netflix!). That only leaves Walking Dead, and I doubt I'd pay $8/month just for one show.
Netflix has Sharknado. That's something you can rewatch every weekend, as long as you drink.
Right some people misuse the internet so now it's ok in your mind to restrict it to only rich people. What about those poor people who actually do use the internet for good uses. Some do get education and use it to better themselves, some use it to organize neighbors in a voting campaign, some use it to broadcast problems in their neighborhoods. Don't forget many people need it just to communicate with various companies and services, such as their doctor, their bank, the government. Maybe you only use it for cat videos but smart people use it for a whole lot more.
I earned it by being lucky, being born middle class, having a college education and finding a good job. If internet is a luxury then your point has more validity. But internet rapidly becoming an essential service. Shouting at the bums to get a job never actually solved any problems.
This originally came about for universal service on phones. Without this subsidizing we would not even have had basic phone service in many parts of the US.
Just like today some people say "poor people can just go to the library if they want the internet" or "farmers who want broadband should move to the city", in the past there were those who felt the same about telephones who though poor people could just head to the postoffice to make a call or rural people could drive to town.
This isn't socialism. The internet has grown enough so that it's no long merely a luxury for colleges and corporations, but is an increasingly necessary part of modern life, where access to basic services is becoming dependent upon the internet.
A lot seem to be concerned about usefulness for broad use, as in how will it fare for end points like mobile phones or wifi access. However even if it never becomes useful in that arena what I want to know is how it will fair for longer distance communications, for specific uses rather than mass market consumers. Places where point to point radio is currently being used, or possibly where wired connections at a lower speed are in use. 2.5m is not much but it's just early work, so if it can be extended then this would be good for backhaul links or used where wired connections are impractical or expensive.
It's ok, the internet rebooted itself shortly after imploding. Whether it is the same internet as before the big bang is still being debated by theoreticians.
ISIS leader says "we control this much land now" while hold his hands apart.
Ukraine has never been a part of Russia though. It was a part of a Russian empire, and a part of USSR, but that's not at all the same as being a part of Russia itself. It was mostly a divided area of land ruled by a variety of other groups over its history, it's been a part of several non-Russian empires as well. It's a very complicated history but distinct from Russia.
Scotland on the other hand has been a part of the UK for 300 years. The English did not force a famine in Scotland, although Stalin did force a famine in Ukraine (yes I know about Ireland). Scotland actually has a referendum that appears to all intents and purposes to be legitimate under national and international law, it is not a quick rough shod referendum imposed by a small group that stole power at gunpoint.
Anyone trying to equate the Scotland referendum with the Ukrainian situation is hard to take seriously.
Probably not. The South would not have kept going with the slave system for much longer, it still had a very poor economy. A lot of today's grumbling in the South comes from the harsh reconstruction period rather than from any tyranny from the North from before the war. So if the South did secede the most they'd have to blame would be an economic isolation (not just from the other states, but probably from much of Europe). Without a brutal war there's no villain to point fingers at. There's also been some revisionist history over time that the war was not really about slavery but about a way of life, stuff like that. Without the war it's likely that over time southerners would realize how stupid slavery really was and that maybe the north was right about trying to restrict its growth.
The first shots were fired by the South though. Before the war, the southern states inded enjoyed a lot of self-determination. They weren't their own country but they certainly had plenty of major concessions, and a very sweet deal that gave slave states extra representation.
The straws that broke the camel's back so to speak, was refusal to expand the slave trade to US territories, and that Lincoln won the election without winning any southern state's electoral votes. Both of those essentially said that the south was losing political power (no new slave states meant the balance of power in Washington wouldn't favor them). Democracy is fine and all, as long as your vote has strong influence. But when a group finds themselves in a minority then democracy stops seeming as nice as it once was.
Many of these self-determination movements actually do seem to revolve around the idea of becoming the majority again or regaining some lost political clout, when there's no actual abuse or tyranny by the majority.
Why not give them some of the navy? Scots helped pay for it and helped build it, and Scots are serving in it.
Banks aren't a problem, they don't have to be nationalized banks, just have private banks. The branches are already there and much of the deposits too I suspect. Setting up a national bank is harder but not insurmountable, they'll probably keep a joint national bank for awhile.
Texas already seceded from Mexico. If they did it again people would start to think Texas is wishy washy.