It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important to you.
I don't know, you can still take their input and consider it important, but just ignore it because it goes against what you want to do with your things. I think it's a bit heavy handed to say it shouldn't be important.
See my reply to sibling post by hognaxious(sp?) - I clarified my position a bit more.
I'm also married (only the one time over 8 years to a women I've known for a total of 15). The dynamics of anyone's relationship is really their own business and if it's working for them no one should judge.
We keep our finances separate and divided the bills up more or less evenly so whatever is left over is our individual spending money. I bought myself a car, outside of the regular bills, almost 10 years ago and I let her use it. She's only complained to me once because she wanted to take it to her parents place for the weekend, which would have left me stranded on a weekend where I had a ton of things to do. She told me I could take the metro bus around town, which I wasn't particularly happy with, and a little angry she even made the suggestion. It would have required two days to do an afternoon's running around. Not to mention the difficulty of transporting things, including lumber, or having to run out on the spot if I was missing something. There was some discussion about it that got heated and nearly ended with her losing all driving privileges. We "compromised" and she got a two-way bus ticket so she could go to her parents and I'd have the car. The compromise was I'd let her keep using the car if I didn't need it.
Sounds like you have a great marriage. I wish you many more happy years.
Every now and then I remind her the car is getting up in age and we'll have to get another one. I've been saving knowing it's coming and don't need her help to pay for it, but I give her the option so she'd have more of a say in how it's used. She's happy enough with the arrangement and knows unless she pitches in for it there's no expectation she'll just get to take off with it whenever she likes. I know it sounds like a harsh arrangement or that I don't respect my wife, but that's not the case. We get along great, real couples know marriage is a team effort, but that doesn't mean you have to let your spouse call all the plays all the time and you shouldn't just let them walk all over you. She gets to win her share of the battles too.
most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own.
This part I agree with, but it's not exclusive to women. Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them. But I'm compensated with the company and entertainment, which is really the same thing with marriage, except there's sex too.
Yeah, well the difference as I see it is this - if my friends come over and drink my shitty beer because it's free, and then see fit to display contempt for my taste they won't be my friends any longer. I do not see why I should put up with behaviour in a spouse that will get a friend unfriended, which is what the OP appeared to imply.
Listen to me, I know all about aircraft - I've been in dozens of crashes.
Only a fool would ignore a pilot who's adept at surviving crashes. You sort of make my point for me.
It's my car, if you don't like it then go get your own.
I suspect it's not about whose car it is. It's about being embarrassed by association with a boorish oaf.
If she's so embarrassed she can go be with someone else. In fact, I encourage it - while I prefer women to leave me than for me to leave them, it's funny how they almost never want to leave while they're getting free stuff.[1]
If a woman is going to make light of my tastes[2] then I'd prefer for her to leave. There's a queue of women waiting to take her place. I'm always surprised that there actually are men and women who put up with contemptuous attitudes from their partners.
If I can publicly respect her taste in clothing, movies, music and friends while privately considering them poor, shallow, artless and dimwitted respectively, then she better bloody well publicly respect my tastes or GTFO.
[1] Pre-nups are enforceable where I am. No alimony.
[2] My tastes are actually quite refined - while I'm not the type to pimp out a car, I am the type to build one up. I'm starting a sevenesque build this coming September, and I can promise you one thing - if my current wife tells me that she finds my hobbies in the workshop to be boorish or oafish I'm kicking her ass to the curb, same as I did to the one before her.
You aren't married are you? Anyone who is married is laughing at your naivety right now. (Including me)
Watch it with your generalisations there mate - they don't apply to all couples. I've been married multiple times (married right now, as it happens), and my view is always "It's my car, if you don't like it then go get your own."
Funnily enough, most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own. It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important yo you.
Reputation and Trust take years to build up, and it can all be destroyed in minutes by the wrong decisions. Back in the day, SF used to be the go-to place, but not anymore. I avoid it like the plague, like many, many others.
Good luck trying to build it again, but remember what I posted about reputation and trust...
You do know that whipslash told us all his real name, right? FCOL, the man just put his name behind SF - I doubt he'd want to drag SF through the mud after publicly standing behind it!
Yeah I'm aware of the sentiment directed at the previous owners. I hope everyone will see we are different in the coming weeks, if it's not clear already
It's clear to those of us who are conscious:-) Ignore the ACs who are flaming and/or trolling you - pretty much everyone in the know already knows that SF is under new management. Most of us here (myself included) will happily give you a fair shake in light of your actions with SF and interaction with/.
Relatedly, you're in a prime position here even if you do not realise it. Github appears to be having a nervous breakdown of some sort. SF is well-positioned to transition Github users. In short - you should be propositioning open-source projects as SF offered much more than Github.
Even Capacity is going to go this year, with expected 16 TB SSD drives coming to market. The only thing Spinning drives have at this point is Price. And if price is all you care about, then go Cheap! For everything else, go SSD>
You really think the overall media market is ready to pay 4x the price for no additional benefit? It's one thing to pay a 10% premium for something slightly better, it's quite another to pay a 400% premium for a difference you won't notice.
I've played a lot of video games over the centuries. I don't ever recall any idealized versions of men or women.
For a two hundred year old you sure are tech-savy:-). Regardless of pacman and tetris, games like the batman series, the far cry series, the CoD series, the doom series, the just cause series, the saints row series... and many more... all present a buffed-up man as the idealised perfect soldier, capable of waging and winning a one-man war against (in some instances) entire countries. If you think that that is not unrealistic and idealised then you sure know some hardcore men.
For my part, all those men appear to me to be unrealistically perfect, which is why I am not surprised when the women presented in videogames are also unrealistically perfect. See Diablo II for examples of both in the same game.
To be clear, she isn't saying that the way men are presented is great either.
Lying by omission - two parties are presented unrealistically. She complains that only one party is presented unrealistically giving the impression that it is prejudice, bias or bigotry responsible. The fact that the other party is presented just as unrealistically breaks her argument down completely.
She is just pointing out that there is a problem specific to female characters, who are designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience.
You see it as "designed to provide titillation to a presumed male audience", most people see it as "idealised version of people, men and women". See any Hollywood movies lately? Notice how the men and women presented are nothing like real people? You seriously think that all those Hollywood leading men aren't designed to provide titillation to female audiences?
There's a whole genre of movies frequently called chick-flicks that are designed primarily to indulge female fantasies. Hell, there's even series devoted to the very same thing (see cougar town). So why is it a problem when a videogame indulges male fantasies. Are only females allowed to have fantasies?
So it's a discussion about what to do if men show up at a private meeting for female programmers and start being disruptive.
No, it isn't about disruptive men. From the link over here:
The presence of men at meetups will likely make some of our attendees not want to come back. Even if they aren't displaying any outright problematic behaviors.
I didn't say it promotes any particular behaviour, I said it normalizes it.
So did Thompson - from this link over here: It's entirely possible that shooter video games helped desensitize Lanza to violence. "
If this argument didn't work for Thompson, what makes you think it would work for you? It's the exact same argument - $FOO desensitizes people to $BAR - just replace $FOO and $BAR with whatever you've got in $IDEOLOGY argument.
Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?"
That is the only issue you can see. I can only repeat myself so many times, read my posts above.
It's the only issue that is displayed - it doesn't matter how much flowery language you dress it up in or how verbose your explanation of your reasoning for wanting to limit other peoples enjoyment with their property, it still comes down to that single question.
You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
That would be 'society in general'. We have these things called 'social norms'. When I talk about deviant behavior, I mean behavior that deviates from those norms.
Yeah, and at one point we, as society, determined that homosexuality was deviant behaviour. Turns out all it was was puritanical types poking their noses into other peoples bedrooms. You're doing the same thing - "Everyone agrees that this sexual behaviour, with only consenting adults, is deviant."
[...] they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine?
The objection people are having here is to Cortana's response to abusive language. That is, they want the program to respond to their abusive comments in a particular way that is not the same as the "professional personal assistant" way in which the program is designed to respond.
See my earlier reply to someone else upthread - you gets to draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious' questions. You? Me?
That is, they want the program to indulge them in their deviant fantasies.
And this is wrong how? It doesn't affect you in the least if the product answers every question as if it were a serious question. It does affect other people if the product decides that some questions aren't worth answering.
They believe Microsoft should have accommodated their particular fetish.
How you've turned that in to the belief that I want to limit how someone sexually interacts with a machine is a mystery. By all means, molest your toaster and ask the coffee machine if it wants to join in on the action. I couldn't care less. For your neighbor's sake, however, I will request that you draw the shades ahead of time.
What I see as the actual problem, is the attempt to normalize abusive behavior.
It's not abuse if there is no one involved in the receipt of such expression. "Abusive behaviour" requires a recipient - in this case there is none.
I asked you some questions earlier that should help you to understand the issues. I would encourage you to answer them.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms.
Why do you conflate abuse and sexuality? While it's true that some abuse can be sexual abuse, not all abuse is sexual. Neither is all sexual behavior abusive. You may want to sort that out.
Yeah, but in this case they have been conflated - As I understand it FTA, asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.
She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters.
You have a problem with a work of fiction presenting an idealised version of a woman? Those very same games present idealised versions of men as well - why is one a problem but not the other?
No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom.
No, you were talking about that. I still have no idea why.
Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?". You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise
Even though the first thing I did was explicitly deny that absurd accusation?
You deny that you want to enter peoples bedrooms, but at the same time advocate that they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine? Those are mutually exclusive options - you can't argue for limiting consenting adults sexual behaviours while at the same time argue that other peoples sexual behaviours are no business of yours.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms. If you really feel that what people do in their bedrooms is their own business you wouldn't be proposing to limit their private sexual expressions.
Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed?
We're talking about the normalization of deviant behavior.
No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom. I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise, hence I referred to it as "The Puritanical Argument".
It doesn't matter how you paint it - you are arguing that what consenting adults do in their bedroom must be regulated for the good of society - now where have we seen this argument before, eh?
? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?
If two consenting adults want to engage in some legal act with one another, I couldn't care less. Abuse, however, isn't a consensual act, and many forms of abuse are, obviously, not legal.
Totally irrelevant - all of your interactions with cortana are consenusal. Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed? We've seen this argument before and it's not a good one - a person masturbating to their software in the privacy of their bedroom doesn't require consent from anyone but themselves.
I'm deeply curious, however, as to why so many people here are upset that they can't pretend to verbally abuse women and have the virtual object of their ridicule react as though it had been dominated or otherwise became a submissive and accepting of that kind of abuse. This is obviously a fantasy they have, which is disturbing.
Ah, the puritanical argument - haven't seen that one in a while - why does it bother you what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?
They mean sexually subservient. Obviously it will do what you ask it to most of the time, but it won't assist with your sexual fantasies or simply put up with abuse.
This is a good thing. We shouldn't create AI that normalises abusive relationships, as it would be irresponsible.
You know when I previously warned you that your extremist views are abhorrent to the middle majority of the population? Yeah, well, this is one of those views. No one created an AI that normalised abusive relationships. We've seen your views before - $X software promotes $Y behaviour.
Where have we seen it? Let's ask Jack Thompson...$X software promotes $Y behaviour is abhorrent, moreso since you don't have any evidence for this partilcuar claim either.
Everybody needs to lighten up. They are talking about the writing prompts they used for non-serious questions.
So now the search engine gets to decide which of my questions deserve answering and which do not? Who draws the line at serious/non-serious questions? You? me? That poster over there?
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda.
Well, we currently do it for men. Do you have any good arguments for why forcing men into years of servitude is okay but forcing women into years of servitude is not? If it is okay to force $GENDER into servitude for years, why does it stop being okay when the gender changes?
Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.
True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighting this sort of technology.
It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows. Same as with music - someone upthread pointed out that old music outsells new music. I dunno if it's true but it certainly sounds plausible - the new stuff is all crap.
Hell, a friend dropped by with a terabyte drive filled with recent shows. I've seen perhaps the first two episodes of each show but the only one I was willing to sit through was "How to get away with Murder".
Think about it - if I don't watch the shows when I already have it, basically for free, what chance do they have of selling me their shows? I sat down to "Orange is the New Black" because of the large number of people who said "don't miss this one". I found it boring - it's basically character development (I think - the shallow main character never developed much in the first two episodes). No plot, no twists, no suspense, no action, no witticisms, no humour, no profound enlightenment, no resolution to look forward to, no merit whatsoever. At least watching paint dry has some resolution to look forward to (When it's dry we can put on another coat).
OistnB is basically watching someone meander through their sentence, interspersed with flashbacks to display how shallow she is (presumably so we can see how much she's grown by the end of the show?). I suppose it's got the viewers it has due to the large number of lesbian sex-scenes, but hey, if I wanted to watch porn I wouldn't watch softcore porn. My wife and I purchased a large collection (some still on DVD) that we can watch instead.
I expect better when I want to watch a show. Perhaps after the next (final) season of Person of Interest I might cancel the damn TV subscription
I've posted my arguments on these points in detail several times. I'm not going to be sealined into repeating them for you now, since you seem perfectly capable of using the search function.
I mean, what's the point? I tell you I'm against something, you refuse to believe it and insist your interpretation of previous statements must be correct.
Sorry, no. I don't insist on anything but evidence. I've done this many times, only for you to go silent after getting asked for evidence.
There is literally nothing I can say to change you mind, no amount of explanation or elaboration will help, so why bother? Your mind is closed and I can't pry it open.
I'm not trying to convince you - I said you had faith-based arguments, and no amount of evidence moves faith. What I *am* doing is ensuring that your opinions on these things don't get mistaken for fact. Like your "evidence" (more women in CS in the 80's) of sexism in CS. I've already noticed that my repeated insistence on evidence for your sexism assertion means that you post that argument less and less.
It's funny, actually - you accuse me of a closed mind when you have closed your mind to any explanation (other than your faith-based one) for the dropping of women in CS (just one example out of many). Ask yourself, does an intellectually honest person make a god-of-the-gaps argument?
I was just using the language of the person I was replying to. So it depends what you mean.
Should we have segregated bathrooms? Yes.
Should we have a segregated society, like the old South Africa or something? No.
When people say "segregation" without any context, they generally mean the latter.
Which is why I quoted as much as possible and linked to the posts you made - all the context is in there. You still don't get it - your ideology is just as abhorrent to normal folk as those who claim that women aren't as capable in $INTELLECTUAL_ENDEAVOR as men.
Here's a link showing the decline of women in CS since the 80s. I've posted it before (but somehow you couldn't find that), and frankly I'm not your personal google butler. http://www.randalolson.com/wp-...
Strawman - I never your numbers, I contended your repeated claims that is must be due to sexism. Where's your evidence that it's due to sexism? After all I never contended that the number of women is anything other than you claim for various years, I contended that sexism doesn't explain the difference in numbers.
Sorry, but you have gone full SJW. Random accusations that bare no relation to reality, based on things you misunderstood or didn't bother to read properly. Welcome to the valley of the bell curve.
Nope - you proposed that it would be better to segregate girls into their own CS class. You've proposed this multiple times.
From your post over here: "Segregation [in school classes] is the answer. "
From your post over here:So yeah, segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, CS classes, fine, there are clear reasons and no-one is disadvantaged.
From your post over here about yet another girls-only CS class: "In this case a specific need for segregation has been identified."
There's a ton more where that came from. The problem is that you do not view your ideology as extremist. You repeat oft-debunked statements in support of your ideology, hoping that this time someone won't bother with debunking your faith-based claim. And it's not like you don't know better - I see you get debunked with polite replies all the time, which you "conveniently" forget... much like the way you "forgot" you are for segregation in your reply to me above.
As always, I'm happy to oblige with links to your specific mendacity:-) You make lots of claims ("Fewer women in CS now than in 80's due to sexism", "We know why womken aren't in CS because they tell us", etc) with nary a backing piece of evidence.
How about this: for your next claim, why don't you provide links to evidence, like the way us in the middle majority of the bell curve do? Like the way, in fact, I did above.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, you can still take their input and consider it important, but just ignore it because it goes against what you want to do with your things. I think it's a bit heavy handed to say it shouldn't be important.
See my reply to sibling post by hognaxious(sp?) - I clarified my position a bit more.
I'm also married (only the one time over 8 years to a women I've known for a total of 15). The dynamics of anyone's relationship is really their own business and if it's working for them no one should judge. We keep our finances separate and divided the bills up more or less evenly so whatever is left over is our individual spending money. I bought myself a car, outside of the regular bills, almost 10 years ago and I let her use it. She's only complained to me once because she wanted to take it to her parents place for the weekend, which would have left me stranded on a weekend where I had a ton of things to do. She told me I could take the metro bus around town, which I wasn't particularly happy with, and a little angry she even made the suggestion. It would have required two days to do an afternoon's running around. Not to mention the difficulty of transporting things, including lumber, or having to run out on the spot if I was missing something. There was some discussion about it that got heated and nearly ended with her losing all driving privileges. We "compromised" and she got a two-way bus ticket so she could go to her parents and I'd have the car. The compromise was I'd let her keep using the car if I didn't need it.
Sounds like you have a great marriage. I wish you many more happy years.
Every now and then I remind her the car is getting up in age and we'll have to get another one. I've been saving knowing it's coming and don't need her help to pay for it, but I give her the option so she'd have more of a say in how it's used. She's happy enough with the arrangement and knows unless she pitches in for it there's no expectation she'll just get to take off with it whenever she likes. I know it sounds like a harsh arrangement or that I don't respect my wife, but that's not the case. We get along great, real couples know marriage is a team effort, but that doesn't mean you have to let your spouse call all the plays all the time and you shouldn't just let them walk all over you. She gets to win her share of the battles too.
This part I agree with, but it's not exclusive to women. Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them. But I'm compensated with the company and entertainment, which is really the same thing with marriage, except there's sex too.
Yeah, well the difference as I see it is this - if my friends come over and drink my shitty beer because it's free, and then see fit to display contempt for my taste they won't be my friends any longer. I do not see why I should put up with behaviour in a spouse that will get a friend unfriended, which is what the OP appeared to imply.
Listen to me, I know all about aircraft - I've been in dozens of crashes.
Only a fool would ignore a pilot who's adept at surviving crashes. You sort of make my point for me.
I suspect it's not about whose car it is. It's about being embarrassed by association with a boorish oaf.
If she's so embarrassed she can go be with someone else. In fact, I encourage it - while I prefer women to leave me than for me to leave them, it's funny how they almost never want to leave while they're getting free stuff.[1]
If a woman is going to make light of my tastes[2] then I'd prefer for her to leave. There's a queue of women waiting to take her place. I'm always surprised that there actually are men and women who put up with contemptuous attitudes from their partners.
If I can publicly respect her taste in clothing, movies, music and friends while privately considering them poor, shallow, artless and dimwitted respectively, then she better bloody well publicly respect my tastes or GTFO.
[1] Pre-nups are enforceable where I am. No alimony.
[2] My tastes are actually quite refined - while I'm not the type to pimp out a car, I am the type to build one up. I'm starting a sevenesque build this coming September, and I can promise you one thing - if my current wife tells me that she finds my hobbies in the workshop to be boorish or oafish I'm kicking her ass to the curb, same as I did to the one before her.
You aren't married are you? Anyone who is married is laughing at your naivety right now. (Including me)
Watch it with your generalisations there mate - they don't apply to all couples. I've been married multiple times (married right now, as it happens), and my view is always "It's my car, if you don't like it then go get your own."
Funnily enough, most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own. It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important yo you.
In order to use some of the more interesting features of BASIC on the C64 you had to POKE to and PEEK from very specific memory locations.
53280 and 53281 controlled the screen and border colours.
:-)
POKE 53280,0
POKE 53281,0
Reputation and Trust take years to build up, and it can all be destroyed in minutes by the wrong decisions. Back in the day, SF used to be the go-to place, but not anymore. I avoid it like the plague, like many, many others.
Good luck trying to build it again, but remember what I posted about reputation and trust...
You do know that whipslash told us all his real name, right? FCOL, the man just put his name behind SF - I doubt he'd want to drag SF through the mud after publicly standing behind it!
Yeah I'm aware of the sentiment directed at the previous owners. I hope everyone will see we are different in the coming weeks, if it's not clear already
It's clear to those of us who are conscious :-) Ignore the ACs who are flaming and/or trolling you - pretty much everyone in the know already knows that SF is under new management. Most of us here (myself included) will happily give you a fair shake in light of your actions with SF and interaction with /.
Relatedly, you're in a prime position here even if you do not realise it. Github appears to be having a nervous breakdown of some sort. SF is well-positioned to transition Github users. In short - you should be propositioning open-source projects as SF offered much more than Github.
Even Capacity is going to go this year, with expected 16 TB SSD drives coming to market. The only thing Spinning drives have at this point is Price. And if price is all you care about, then go Cheap! For everything else, go SSD>
You really think the overall media market is ready to pay 4x the price for no additional benefit? It's one thing to pay a 10% premium for something slightly better, it's quite another to pay a 400% premium for a difference you won't notice.
Woosh :-)
I've played a lot of video games over the centuries. I don't ever recall any idealized versions of men or women.
For a two hundred year old you sure are tech-savy :-). Regardless of pacman and tetris, games like the batman series, the far cry series, the CoD series, the doom series, the just cause series, the saints row series... and many more... all present a buffed-up man as the idealised perfect soldier, capable of waging and winning a one-man war against (in some instances) entire countries. If you think that that is not unrealistic and idealised then you sure know some hardcore men.
For my part, all those men appear to me to be unrealistically perfect, which is why I am not surprised when the women presented in videogames are also unrealistically perfect. See Diablo II for examples of both in the same game.
To be clear, she isn't saying that the way men are presented is great either. Lying by omission - two parties are presented unrealistically. She complains that only one party is presented unrealistically giving the impression that it is prejudice, bias or bigotry responsible. The fact that the other party is presented just as unrealistically breaks her argument down completely.
She is just pointing out that there is a problem specific to female characters, who are designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience.
You see it as "designed to provide titillation to a presumed male audience", most people see it as "idealised version of people, men and women". See any Hollywood movies lately? Notice how the men and women presented are nothing like real people? You seriously think that all those Hollywood leading men aren't designed to provide titillation to female audiences?
There's a whole genre of movies frequently called chick-flicks that are designed primarily to indulge female fantasies. Hell, there's even series devoted to the very same thing (see cougar town). So why is it a problem when a videogame indulges male fantasies. Are only females allowed to have fantasies?
So it's a discussion about what to do if men show up at a private meeting for female programmers and start being disruptive.
No, it isn't about disruptive men. From the link over here:
The presence of men at meetups will likely make some of our attendees not want to come back. Even if they aren't displaying any outright problematic behaviors.
I didn't say it promotes any particular behaviour, I said it normalizes it.
So did Thompson - from this link over here:
It's entirely possible that shooter video games helped desensitize Lanza to violence. "
If this argument didn't work for Thompson, what makes you think it would work for you? It's the exact same argument - $FOO desensitizes people to $BAR - just replace $FOO and $BAR with whatever you've got in $IDEOLOGY argument.
Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?"
That is the only issue you can see. I can only repeat myself so many times, read my posts above.
It's the only issue that is displayed - it doesn't matter how much flowery language you dress it up in or how verbose your explanation of your reasoning for wanting to limit other peoples enjoyment with their property, it still comes down to that single question.
You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
That would be 'society in general'. We have these things called 'social norms'. When I talk about deviant behavior, I mean behavior that deviates from those norms.
Yeah, and at one point we, as society, determined that homosexuality was deviant behaviour. Turns out all it was was puritanical types poking their noses into other peoples bedrooms. You're doing the same thing - "Everyone agrees that this sexual behaviour, with only consenting adults, is deviant."
[...] they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine?
The objection people are having here is to Cortana's response to abusive language. That is, they want the program to respond to their abusive comments in a particular way that is not the same as the "professional personal assistant" way in which the program is designed to respond.
See my earlier reply to someone else upthread - you gets to draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious' questions. You? Me?
That is, they want the program to indulge them in their deviant fantasies.
And this is wrong how? It doesn't affect you in the least if the product answers every question as if it were a serious question. It does affect other people if the product decides that some questions aren't worth answering.
They believe Microsoft should have accommodated their particular fetish.
How you've turned that in to the belief that I want to limit how someone sexually interacts with a machine is a mystery. By all means, molest your toaster and ask the coffee machine if it wants to join in on the action. I couldn't care less. For your neighbor's sake, however, I will request that you draw the shades ahead of time.
What I see as the actual problem, is the attempt to normalize abusive behavior.
It's not abuse if there is no one involved in the receipt of such expression. "Abusive behaviour" requires a recipient - in this case there is none.
I asked you some questions earlier that should help you to understand the issues. I would encourage you to answer them.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms.
Why do you conflate abuse and sexuality? While it's true that some abuse can be sexual abuse, not all abuse is sexual. Neither is all sexual behavior abusive. You may want to sort that out.
Yeah, but in this case they have been conflated - As I understand it FTA, asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.
She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters.
You have a problem with a work of fiction presenting an idealised version of a woman? Those very same games present idealised versions of men as well - why is one a problem but not the other?
No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom.
No, you were talking about that. I still have no idea why.
Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?". You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise
Even though the first thing I did was explicitly deny that absurd accusation?
You deny that you want to enter peoples bedrooms, but at the same time advocate that they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine? Those are mutually exclusive options - you can't argue for limiting consenting adults sexual behaviours while at the same time argue that other peoples sexual behaviours are no business of yours.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms. If you really feel that what people do in their bedrooms is their own business you wouldn't be proposing to limit their private sexual expressions.
Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed?
We're talking about the normalization of deviant behavior.
No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom. I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise, hence I referred to it as "The Puritanical Argument".
It doesn't matter how you paint it - you are arguing that what consenting adults do in their bedroom must be regulated for the good of society - now where have we seen this argument before, eh?
? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?
If two consenting adults want to engage in some legal act with one another, I couldn't care less. Abuse, however, isn't a consensual act, and many forms of abuse are, obviously, not legal.
Totally irrelevant - all of your interactions with cortana are consenusal. Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed? We've seen this argument before and it's not a good one - a person masturbating to their software in the privacy of their bedroom doesn't require consent from anyone but themselves.
I'm deeply curious, however, as to why so many people here are upset that they can't pretend to verbally abuse women and have the virtual object of their ridicule react as though it had been dominated or otherwise became a submissive and accepting of that kind of abuse. This is obviously a fantasy they have, which is disturbing.
Ah, the puritanical argument - haven't seen that one in a while - why does it bother you what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?
They mean sexually subservient. Obviously it will do what you ask it to most of the time, but it won't assist with your sexual fantasies or simply put up with abuse.
This is a good thing. We shouldn't create AI that normalises abusive relationships, as it would be irresponsible.
You know when I previously warned you that your extremist views are abhorrent to the middle majority of the population? Yeah, well, this is one of those views. No one created an AI that normalised abusive relationships. We've seen your views before - $X software promotes $Y behaviour.
Where have we seen it? Let's ask Jack Thompson...$X software promotes $Y behaviour is abhorrent, moreso since you don't have any evidence for this partilcuar claim either.
Everybody needs to lighten up. They are talking about the writing prompts they used for non-serious questions.
So now the search engine gets to decide which of my questions deserve answering and which do not? Who draws the line at serious/non-serious questions? You? me? That poster over there?
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda.
Well, we currently do it for men. Do you have any good arguments for why forcing men into years of servitude is okay but forcing women into years of servitude is not? If it is okay to force $GENDER into servitude for years, why does it stop being okay when the gender changes?
Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.
True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighting this sort of technology.
It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows. Same as with music - someone upthread pointed out that old music outsells new music. I dunno if it's true but it certainly sounds plausible - the new stuff is all crap.
Hell, a friend dropped by with a terabyte drive filled with recent shows. I've seen perhaps the first two episodes of each show but the only one I was willing to sit through was "How to get away with Murder".
Think about it - if I don't watch the shows when I already have it, basically for free, what chance do they have of selling me their shows? I sat down to "Orange is the New Black" because of the large number of people who said "don't miss this one". I found it boring - it's basically character development (I think - the shallow main character never developed much in the first two episodes). No plot, no twists, no suspense, no action, no witticisms, no humour, no profound enlightenment, no resolution to look forward to, no merit whatsoever. At least watching paint dry has some resolution to look forward to (When it's dry we can put on another coat).
OistnB is basically watching someone meander through their sentence, interspersed with flashbacks to display how shallow she is (presumably so we can see how much she's grown by the end of the show?). I suppose it's got the viewers it has due to the large number of lesbian sex-scenes, but hey, if I wanted to watch porn I wouldn't watch softcore porn. My wife and I purchased a large collection (some still on DVD) that we can watch instead.
I expect better when I want to watch a show. Perhaps after the next (final) season of Person of Interest I might cancel the damn TV subscription
I've posted my arguments on these points in detail several times. I'm not going to be sealined into repeating them for you now, since you seem perfectly capable of using the search function.
I mean, what's the point? I tell you I'm against something, you refuse to believe it and insist your interpretation of previous statements must be correct.
Sorry, no. I don't insist on anything but evidence. I've done this many times, only for you to go silent after getting asked for evidence.
There is literally nothing I can say to change you mind, no amount of explanation or elaboration will help, so why bother? Your mind is closed and I can't pry it open.
I'm not trying to convince you - I said you had faith-based arguments, and no amount of evidence moves faith. What I *am* doing is ensuring that your opinions on these things don't get mistaken for fact. Like your "evidence" (more women in CS in the 80's) of sexism in CS. I've already noticed that my repeated insistence on evidence for your sexism assertion means that you post that argument less and less.
It's funny, actually - you accuse me of a closed mind when you have closed your mind to any explanation (other than your faith-based one) for the dropping of women in CS (just one example out of many). Ask yourself, does an intellectually honest person make a god-of-the-gaps argument?
I was just using the language of the person I was replying to. So it depends what you mean.
Should we have segregated bathrooms? Yes.
Should we have a segregated society, like the old South Africa or something? No.
When people say "segregation" without any context, they generally mean the latter.
Which is why I quoted as much as possible and linked to the posts you made - all the context is in there. You still don't get it - your ideology is just as abhorrent to normal folk as those who claim that women aren't as capable in $INTELLECTUAL_ENDEAVOR as men.
Here's a link showing the decline of women in CS since the 80s. I've posted it before (but somehow you couldn't find that), and frankly I'm not your personal google butler. http://www.randalolson.com/wp-...
Strawman - I never your numbers, I contended your repeated claims that is must be due to sexism. Where's your evidence that it's due to sexism? After all I never contended that the number of women is anything other than you claim for various years, I contended that sexism doesn't explain the difference in numbers.
Your memory is faulty. I'm against segregation.
Sorry, but you have gone full SJW. Random accusations that bare no relation to reality, based on things you misunderstood or didn't bother to read properly. Welcome to the valley of the bell curve.
Nope - you proposed that it would be better to segregate girls into their own CS class. You've proposed this multiple times.
From your post over here: "Segregation [in school classes] is the answer. "
From your post over here:So yeah, segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, CS classes, fine, there are clear reasons and no-one is disadvantaged.
From your post over here about yet another girls-only CS class: "In this case a specific need for segregation has been identified."
There's a ton more where that came from. The problem is that you do not view your ideology as extremist. You repeat oft-debunked statements in support of your ideology, hoping that this time someone won't bother with debunking your faith-based claim. And it's not like you don't know better - I see you get debunked with polite replies all the time, which you "conveniently" forget ... much like the way you "forgot" you are for segregation in your reply to me above.
As always, I'm happy to oblige with links to your specific mendacity :-) You make lots of claims ("Fewer women in CS now than in 80's due to sexism", "We know why womken aren't in CS because they tell us", etc) with nary a backing piece of evidence.
How about this: for your next claim, why don't you provide links to evidence, like the way us in the middle majority of the bell curve do? Like the way, in fact, I did above.