I know we don't RTFA arounf here, but authors don't get paid when the book is downloaded, they get paid when someone reads at least 10% of the book.
Parents point still stands: I published on Amazon. I've still got a collection of short stories on Amazon. To game this system all I have to do is publish all my short stories as different books. Instead of one 40k word book that might get read 10% through, I can have 7 smaller "books" that will almost certainly hold the reader for 10% of each book.
The flat fee incentivises the wrong thing - it provides an incentive for crappy authors and/or crappy books to join en masse. The payoff is so small that any popular author (Stephen King, Pratchett, etc) will be stupid to join. The popular authors *are* the draw, and people who have paid the flat-fee will still shell out extra to get the popular author's latest work if it isn't in the flat-fee library.
So, this model incentivises crap being included and masterpieces being excluded - why do you think that you will see anything different in practice?
And free to get crushed by Amazon. There's no competing against a behemoth.
Smashwords seem to be doing just fine (see my link). An artist's biggest problem is obscurity not piracy. Amazon is not helping in this regard, and in fact their insistence on distributing only paid-for books and not free ones means that they (Amazon) are actually a poor platform for new authors.
I want people to read my book and remember my name. On Amazon I get maybe 30 downloads when the book goes for free for five days out of every 90. On Smashwords I get many more downloads (200+) in the same time period. Smashwords is helping me be an author, Amazon wants to help me be a business. I want to be an author.
If enough people decide that I'm a good author then I might decide to be a business, but for now I'm content with just being an author, and Smashwords furthers my goal more than Amazon does.
In fact we were doing pretty well back in the 80s and 90s, but then something went wrong and the numbers have dropped off quite sharply.
Maybe something went right? Time and time again you have been informed that there is a high correlation between fewer rights for women and women going into CS. You, and the rest of the stuck-in-the-dark-ages religious nuts deny keep going silent when presented with the fact that women who have fewer rights go into CS. That's the real reason that there were more women in CS in the US before - it was because they had fewer options.
Go look it up yourself - I've tired of posting these links for you to read which you then ignore when the next religious SJW story breaks. The stats show quite clearly that, currently, women with fewer options go into CS.
She is talking about the past, when we know things were better because more women went into CS
What makes you think that women had it better when they went into CS? In fact, the opposite seems to be true - the more liberated a female population is, the less they go into CS, while the less liberated a female population is the more they go into CS. There's a high correlation between those countries where females have fewer rights and the number of female CS graduates.
Reality, using empirical evidence that you can go collect yourself if you want to, shows that only women with fewer optins go into CS. This is not the first time that this correlation has been pointed out to you, but you conveniently go silent whenever data exists that disproves your faith-based leanings.
Since there used to be more women in CS there must be some explanation for the decline, and women tell us it's because of various factors putting them off
No, there is no published study (links welcome) that says that women in CS experience more off-putting factors than women did in (for example) veterinary science. That is how empirical studies work - you don't get to point at a number without having another number for reference, call it a fitment test.
And your constant leaping from "there used to be more women in CS previously than there is now" to "It must be because of sexism" is illogical and irrational; you have been provided repeatedly with lots of other, more plausible, explanations after which you go silent on the thread. Just like your numerous "Slashdot filled with sexists posts" claims - Myself, and others, have repeatedly asked you to link to these numerous posts, and you always go silent.
I'm sorry, but this faith of yours is like any other religion - it deserves the scorn it gets.
The only example of matriarchy[1] in the world resulted in a backwards, primitive, iron-age society which has never produced anything of value for the rest of mankind (or animal-kind, if you will). I don't think that that was what you wanted to show.
[1] The Mosuo aren't fully matriarchical either, to be honest.
"Plenty of humans would rather be a slave then to starve."
All dogs would rather be a slave than to starve, not just plenty of.
I wouldn't go with wolves as my counter example. I'd go with cats.
I wouldn't go with cats either. We've got three - one is practically wild, only ever shows up occasionally for food while another will cuddle up to any human around whether or not food/shelter is around, and come running if you whistle for him. The third is a little in-between those extremes. Cats are domesticated, some go feral, but many remain domesticated.
They think it's great because, in a tragic case of hilarity, jumping into code with minimal design is what python is great at.
We think it's great because, among other things, it has first-class functions and a very high code:boilerplate ratio. This lets us write very concise, readable, and maintainable code.
That's the tragic case of hilarity I was talking about. You do realise that you're talking about a language that takes the law of least astonishment and throws it out the window? There are too many exceptions to the rule in Python, leaving most people writing things that fail and silently corrupt data, or fail and displays an incomprehensible message to the user. There are too many leaky abstractions, too many unexpected surprises, too many exceptions to the rule. All those things are bad, and python has them all in spades.
If you're a diligent programmer in python/php/javascript/etc then, in each function you write, you're going to double-check that the type passed in is correct, anyway.
Eww, no. I've never seen good Python code that asserts types because it's not the idiom for you to care. For instance, suppose you write a function like:
def get_contents_of(obj): return obj.read()
In this case, obj might be a file, or a web request, or a string (via the StringIO interface). Who knows? Who cares?
def foo (a, b) :
return a/b * 100;
That will eventually fail unless you put in checks to make sure that arguments are what you expect. This is what I meant by hilarious tragedy - python/javascript/etc programmers rely on the caller to read the code before calling the function. You need to know what each function takes and heaven forbid you forget - the damn thing will only fail at runtime, or worse, silently corrupt data without anyone realising it.
Python gives you that check for free when you try to call the method. Let it do the heavy lifting and concentrate on the parts of the problem you actually care about.
Well, except that it is you, the programmer, who is doing the heavy lifting. You have to make sure everything is specified, the language won't help you.
Exceptions are one of the worst things to have become common - an "error" is almost always only caught outside the scope that it occurred in, hence the stack has already been unwound and thus there is no sane way to fix the error and retry the operation that caused the exception.
Yeah, that would be terrible. You almost never use them in Python like that,
Okay, then how doyou use them? Show me one way for a library function to throw an exception for a reason that is fixed by the caller so that the library can retry the line that threw the exception?
I think it boils down to you not knowing idiomatic Python.
Unfortunately I've had to do lots of work in python over the years, both maintaining others' code and writing new code. The reason I know all these nasty-will-bite-you things is because I've run into them in various different programmers code, in various different companies. The problem with python is it's easy to pick up in a few minutes, but all those exceptions to the rule makes it hard to even guess what something might do at runtime. The most frequent problem I've seen is the insane way scope changes in a single line of code when a read of a variable is changed to a write of the same variable.
Changing "var_b = var_a" into "var_a = var_b" should not change the scope of either variable, but in python it does, and it is considered "pythonic". Other languages consider such a thing to be madness, but in python it is considered to be idiomatic rather than just idiotic.
That's OK. I'm ignorant about lots of things, too. But I think you'd find tha
For the best reasons to learn Python, see The Zen of Python. If Python happens to pay more, that's just gravy.
That said, it seems hard to believe that people would get paid extra to work in such a pleasant language. If so, maybe Adam Smith had it all wrong when he said:
First, The wages of labour vary with the ease or hardship, the cleanliness or dirtiness, the honourableness or dishonourableness of the employment...The most detestable of all employments, that of public executioner, is, in proportion to the quantity of work done, better paid than any common trade whatever.
Perhaps florists soon will be making more money than plumbers. Which would really stink.
I see no beauty, simplicity or elegance in the pythonic way variables are handled when shadowed (for example, global scope). You can read them BUT writing them fails silently! Explain how this is intuitive in any way.
As a roundabout answer to your final question... when there is a "technology" (I use that word loosely when describing computer languages) that takes all of 5 minutes to grasp then you are going to get a lot of practitioners of that tech being the type who picked it up in 5 minutes or less. Had they spent the requisite number of years using different idioms in different languages in different industries you can be sure that they would have firmly placed python back down after playing with it for a few weeks.
Proponents think python is great because they're comparing it to PHP and/or Perl. They think it's great because, in a tragic case of hilarity, jumping into code with minimal design is what python is great at. Had they done some design and/or architecture upfront their Java/C++/Ada/etc project would have taken the same time as their python one.
I've never fully understood the whole "check types at runtime" thing. If you're a diligent programmer in python/php/javascript/etc then, in each function you write, you're going to double-check that the type passed in is correct, anyway. The only reason that python/php/javascript/etc code appears to be smaller for the same task in java/C++/Ada/etc is because the former omits all error-checking.
For dynamic languages I still prefer Common Lisp, and that's only because the error signalling mechanism is so much superior to the exception-handling mechanism that you can actually get away with inferred types. Exceptions are one of the worst things to have become common - an "error" is almost always only caught outside the scope that it occurred in, hence the stack has already been unwound and thus there is no sane way to fix the error and retry the operation that caused the exception. Who in their right mind actually thought that this was a good idea? Gosling, when working on Java, must have been on serious meds to forget all he learned when writing MockLisp. To add to this comedy of errors, Guy Steele was only called in after Java was implemented to write the Java spec. Had they called him in a mere 24 months prior to that we may never have had to endure the horrible wreck that is the Exception...
If that were true there would be a lot more male nurses and primary school teachers. Of course it isn't true, and your source is the Daily Fail, a newspaper well known for hating women.
Only if men chose profession based on promiscuity. An argument so stupid no one ever tried to push it before.
The reality is that women have chosen NOT to be in this field... statistically. And as to why they have chosen not to do that... sexism is the least credible answer.
This should be fun.
Why do you believe sexism to be the least credible answer? Please include relevant citations.
Do you have an alternative explanation, which also explains the demographic shift we've seen since the early 1980's? Again, show your work.
The god-of-the-gaps argument doesn't hold for creationism and it doesn't hold for your argument either - just because the result is the way it is does not in any way imply sexism. In fact, in countries with institutionalised sexism there are more female scientists: you know, where females have *fewer* choices they choose maths and science. When they have more choices they choose other things. You need to show, at the very least, some sort of correlation between sexist countries and female participation.
if they replied with something like "Since Android One decided not to sell in physical stores during its launch, we as part of modern trade, have decided not to stock Android One either" we'd know their motivation.
If they spoke like you write we'd be none the wiser.
in India and Saudi, a woman can be killed or brutalized or ostracized for getting snippy
It seems that places with institutionalised sexism (like India) produces more females in tech than those without. Whatever the reasons for having fewer females in tech is, I highly doubt that sexism is amongst them.
While PC-BSD would work for a lot of people who want a desktop, it didn't work for me. There was simply too much cruft. I installed FreeBSD 10.1 and am much happier with it than I was with PC-BSD.
The problem with PC-BSD is not the system, but the add-ons installed-by-default things that I don't want, like the control panel, or the software centre. Now, I could have simply uninstalled those things but I wasn't sure what dependencies existed that might kill my install. With FreeBSD it is all terminal only, until you install Xorg and a window manager. It is simple to work things out without the extra user-friendly software. I found it much simpler to simply edit a few files than to make changes via a GUI - I never knew what changes were actually being made on disk.
OTOH, perhaps it is because I used PC-BSD first that I found FreeBSD a good desktop:-)
Slashdot, will you please end the fucking obsession with feminist gripes.
Not yet. Slashdot thrives on controversial stories, pitting ideologies against science and reason. Remember when they used to post Florian Muellers every article on Sco? Or when they used to post creationist stories? Or that brief period when we had at least one LGBT discrimination story a week? Bitcoin, even?
Slashdot fully understands that creationist/feminist ideologies are subject to a wide range of debunking methods. So/. wins when they post the stories so that the majority will debunk the very obvious lack of logic while the minority get to revel in being righteous against the haters.
It's actually a win-win-win situation. Slashdot gets eyeballs, the ideological minority gets to feel that their axe is finely ground and the rest get to point out logical fallacies by the ton (thus getting to feel superior to that religious minority). A winning formula.
Perhaps a betting pool on what logic-less ideology gets bumped into the headlines next year this time? My vote goes towards the coming recession:-)
Why did there used to be more women in IT than there are now?
You repeatedly answer that statement with "It must be due to misogyny/sexism!". What makes you so sure that that's the answer? That's a leap of faith usually made by creationists when making their god-of-the-gaps argument. Just because no one yet knows the reason does not mean that your proposed reason is correct. Did you even look for any study that might disprove the "regression to the mean" answer for this statement you keep throwing out? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Seriously, arguing this is like arguing with a creationist: you assume that your answer is correct, because, well, you just feel it! Anyone who asks for actual, well, evidence that your answer is correct get's called names. Well Done!
You should not tell anyone what to ware, within the bounds of the law.
Other than (perhaps) AC's, no one on slashdot tells other people what to wear. Maybe you should direct your outrage towards cases where people have been punished for what they wore instead of complaining that many developers are into necrophilia with no evidence other than your outraged opinion over something that doesn't exist (many developers being into necrophilia, that is).
I believe you're criticising someone for their choice of clothing.
Yes, yes I am. There are plenty of forms of clothing I'd criticise. You see, clothing is part of someone's behaviour and behaviour is not above criticism.
So, does that mean it is okay to criticise women who dress scantily? Because ISTR that one of your previous arguments was that you cannot and should not criticise a women for the way she dresses.
So? What does that have to do with it? Why are women so special that one speaks for them all?
You tell me - it's a few feminist activists who are presuming to speak for all women.
Ah so all the complaints "don't count".
It's not that they don't count, it's just that the people who are his peers and who work with him count much much more than the opinion of someone who's only claim to fame is talking on behalf of the worlds women. It's an incredibly damaging stance to take - "world-class scientist must acquire fashion sense" - and one that is especially demeaning to actual female scientists (who may have actually worked with this man). This author who first complained about the shirt, and all others that came after her to do the same, are determined that the role of women in this endeavour that is displayed to the public is reduced to "fashion critic". If they were interested in equality they would have simply interviewed the leading female scientists instead of making fashion critiques.
I'm not sure your outlook is as egaletarian as you feel it is, because your next paragraph leads into random ad-hom about large sections of the population merely because you don't like them. Remember: there's no such thing as reverse bigotry. If you're bigoted against rich white women then you're a bigot plain and simple. The fact that they're rich and white (not sure what that has to do with this anyway) does not make your bigotry worthy, nor does it make you egalatarian.
Pointing out that the demographic (rich white women) who are complaining are the most well-off in the world, as a group, is not bigotry. I like rich white women just fine. It's only rich white women who complain that they are not getting enough that are the ones I don't like. Disliking people because of their opinion hardly counts as bigotry.
What I don't like is that people are stepping into my video games now, continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas.
So would you really be that upset if in the next Zelda game Zelda managed to save herself without having to rely on Link yet again? Or if Princess Peach managed to jump on Bowser's head without Mario's help? It's not like it would affect the game play or anything, just make the story a bit less lame.
Or how about in the next "edgy" game you don't sex sexy, half naked female corpses all over the place? It can still be edgy and violent, just maybe in the cut scene the nameless girl doesn't fall with her panties on display or the inevitable brothel level is skipped over for something a bit more imaginative? Might even make the game better, not relying on lame tropes... Or were you really hoping for some necrophilia, to the point where your experience is ruined without it?
What do you have against scantily clad women? It's not "empowering" for women if they are told repeatedly by people like you that it is wrong for them to dress a certain way, or be a certain thing. In real life, prostitutes in brothels and strip girls in clubs are exercising their right to do what they want to - now you come along and tell them that it's wrong? Doesn't this message conflict with the one they got from Slut Walk?
Slashdot Mirror
I know we don't RTFA arounf here, but authors don't get paid when the book is downloaded, they get paid when someone reads at least 10% of the book.
Parents point still stands: I published on Amazon. I've still got a collection of short stories on Amazon. To game this system all I have to do is publish all my short stories as different books. Instead of one 40k word book that might get read 10% through, I can have 7 smaller "books" that will almost certainly hold the reader for 10% of each book.
The flat fee incentivises the wrong thing - it provides an incentive for crappy authors and/or crappy books to join en masse. The payoff is so small that any popular author (Stephen King, Pratchett, etc) will be stupid to join. The popular authors *are* the draw, and people who have paid the flat-fee will still shell out extra to get the popular author's latest work if it isn't in the flat-fee library.
So, this model incentivises crap being included and masterpieces being excluded - why do you think that you will see anything different in practice?
And free to get crushed by Amazon. There's no competing against a behemoth.
Smashwords seem to be doing just fine (see my link). An artist's biggest problem is obscurity not piracy. Amazon is not helping in this regard, and in fact their insistence on distributing only paid-for books and not free ones means that they (Amazon) are actually a poor platform for new authors.
I want people to read my book and remember my name. On Amazon I get maybe 30 downloads when the book goes for free for five days out of every 90. On Smashwords I get many more downloads (200+) in the same time period. Smashwords is helping me be an author, Amazon wants to help me be a business. I want to be an author.
If enough people decide that I'm a good author then I might decide to be a business, but for now I'm content with just being an author, and Smashwords furthers my goal more than Amazon does.
In fact we were doing pretty well back in the 80s and 90s, but then something went wrong and the numbers have dropped off quite sharply.
Maybe something went right? Time and time again you have been informed that there is a high correlation between fewer rights for women and women going into CS. You, and the rest of the stuck-in-the-dark-ages religious nuts deny keep going silent when presented with the fact that women who have fewer rights go into CS. That's the real reason that there were more women in CS in the US before - it was because they had fewer options.
Go look it up yourself - I've tired of posting these links for you to read which you then ignore when the next religious SJW story breaks. The stats show quite clearly that, currently, women with fewer options go into CS.
She is talking about the past, when we know things were better because more women went into CS
What makes you think that women had it better when they went into CS? In fact, the opposite seems to be true - the more liberated a female population is, the less they go into CS, while the less liberated a female population is the more they go into CS. There's a high correlation between those countries where females have fewer rights and the number of female CS graduates.
Reality, using empirical evidence that you can go collect yourself if you want to, shows that only women with fewer optins go into CS. This is not the first time that this correlation has been pointed out to you, but you conveniently go silent whenever data exists that disproves your faith-based leanings.
Since there used to be more women in CS there must be some explanation for the decline, and women tell us it's because of various factors putting them off
No, there is no published study (links welcome) that says that women in CS experience more off-putting factors than women did in (for example) veterinary science. That is how empirical studies work - you don't get to point at a number without having another number for reference, call it a fitment test.
And your constant leaping from "there used to be more women in CS previously than there is now" to "It must be because of sexism" is illogical and irrational; you have been provided repeatedly with lots of other, more plausible, explanations after which you go silent on the thread. Just like your numerous "Slashdot filled with sexists posts" claims - Myself, and others, have repeatedly asked you to link to these numerous posts, and you always go silent.
I'm sorry, but this faith of yours is like any other religion - it deserves the scorn it gets.
The only example of matriarchy[1] in the world resulted in a backwards, primitive, iron-age society which has never produced anything of value for the rest of mankind (or animal-kind, if you will). I don't think that that was what you wanted to show.
[1] The Mosuo aren't fully matriarchical either, to be honest.
Any idiot out there with at least half a brain knows that violence in unacceptable
And yet there is still quite a lot of violence in our society.
And yet, here we are, living in the least violent period in human history. Your logic doesn't quite make sense.
"Plenty of humans would rather be a slave then to starve." All dogs would rather be a slave than to starve, not just plenty of. I wouldn't go with wolves as my counter example. I'd go with cats.
I wouldn't go with cats either. We've got three - one is practically wild, only ever shows up occasionally for food while another will cuddle up to any human around whether or not food/shelter is around, and come running if you whistle for him. The third is a little in-between those extremes. Cats are domesticated, some go feral, but many remain domesticated.
They think it's great because, in a tragic case of hilarity, jumping into code with minimal design is what python is great at.
We think it's great because, among other things, it has first-class functions and a very high code:boilerplate ratio. This lets us write very concise, readable, and maintainable code.
That's the tragic case of hilarity I was talking about. You do realise that you're talking about a language that takes the law of least astonishment and throws it out the window? There are too many exceptions to the rule in Python, leaving most people writing things that fail and silently corrupt data, or fail and displays an incomprehensible message to the user. There are too many leaky abstractions, too many unexpected surprises, too many exceptions to the rule. All those things are bad, and python has them all in spades.
If you're a diligent programmer in python/php/javascript/etc then, in each function you write, you're going to double-check that the type passed in is correct, anyway.
Eww, no. I've never seen good Python code that asserts types because it's not the idiom for you to care. For instance, suppose you write a function like:
In this case, obj might be a file, or a web request, or a string (via the StringIO interface). Who knows? Who cares?
def foo (a, b) : return a/b * 100; That will eventually fail unless you put in checks to make sure that arguments are what you expect. This is what I meant by hilarious tragedy - python/javascript/etc programmers rely on the caller to read the code before calling the function. You need to know what each function takes and heaven forbid you forget - the damn thing will only fail at runtime, or worse, silently corrupt data without anyone realising it.
Python gives you that check for free when you try to call the method. Let it do the heavy lifting and concentrate on the parts of the problem you actually care about.
Well, except that it is you, the programmer, who is doing the heavy lifting. You have to make sure everything is specified, the language won't help you.
Exceptions are one of the worst things to have become common - an "error" is almost always only caught outside the scope that it occurred in, hence the stack has already been unwound and thus there is no sane way to fix the error and retry the operation that caused the exception.
Yeah, that would be terrible. You almost never use them in Python like that,
Okay, then how doyou use them? Show me one way for a library function to throw an exception for a reason that is fixed by the caller so that the library can retry the line that threw the exception?
I think it boils down to you not knowing idiomatic Python.
Unfortunately I've had to do lots of work in python over the years, both maintaining others' code and writing new code. The reason I know all these nasty-will-bite-you things is because I've run into them in various different programmers code, in various different companies. The problem with python is it's easy to pick up in a few minutes, but all those exceptions to the rule makes it hard to even guess what something might do at runtime. The most frequent problem I've seen is the insane way scope changes in a single line of code when a read of a variable is changed to a write of the same variable.
Changing "var_b = var_a" into "var_a = var_b" should not change the scope of either variable, but in python it does, and it is considered "pythonic". Other languages consider such a thing to be madness, but in python it is considered to be idiomatic rather than just idiotic.
That's OK. I'm ignorant about lots of things, too. But I think you'd find tha
For the best reasons to learn Python, see The Zen of Python. If Python happens to pay more, that's just gravy.
That said, it seems hard to believe that people would get paid extra to work in such a pleasant language. If so, maybe Adam Smith had it all wrong when he said:
First, The wages of labour vary with the ease or hardship, the cleanliness or dirtiness, the honourableness or dishonourableness of the employment...The most detestable of all employments, that of public executioner, is, in proportion to the quantity of work done, better paid than any common trade whatever.
Perhaps florists soon will be making more money than plumbers. Which would really stink.
I see no beauty, simplicity or elegance in the pythonic way variables are handled when shadowed (for example, global scope). You can read them BUT writing them fails silently! Explain how this is intuitive in any way.
As a roundabout answer to your final question... when there is a "technology" (I use that word loosely when describing computer languages) that takes all of 5 minutes to grasp then you are going to get a lot of practitioners of that tech being the type who picked it up in 5 minutes or less. Had they spent the requisite number of years using different idioms in different languages in different industries you can be sure that they would have firmly placed python back down after playing with it for a few weeks.
Proponents think python is great because they're comparing it to PHP and/or Perl. They think it's great because, in a tragic case of hilarity, jumping into code with minimal design is what python is great at. Had they done some design and/or architecture upfront their Java/C++/Ada/etc project would have taken the same time as their python one.
I've never fully understood the whole "check types at runtime" thing. If you're a diligent programmer in python/php/javascript/etc then, in each function you write, you're going to double-check that the type passed in is correct, anyway. The only reason that python/php/javascript/etc code appears to be smaller for the same task in java/C++/Ada/etc is because the former omits all error-checking.
For dynamic languages I still prefer Common Lisp, and that's only because the error signalling mechanism is so much superior to the exception-handling mechanism that you can actually get away with inferred types. Exceptions are one of the worst things to have become common - an "error" is almost always only caught outside the scope that it occurred in, hence the stack has already been unwound and thus there is no sane way to fix the error and retry the operation that caused the exception. Who in their right mind actually thought that this was a good idea? Gosling, when working on Java, must have been on serious meds to forget all he learned when writing MockLisp. To add to this comedy of errors, Guy Steele was only called in after Java was implemented to write the Java spec. Had they called him in a mere 24 months prior to that we may never have had to endure the horrible wreck that is the Exception ...
If that were true there would be a lot more male nurses and primary school teachers. Of course it isn't true, and your source is the Daily Fail, a newspaper well known for hating women.
Only if men chose profession based on promiscuity. An argument so stupid no one ever tried to push it before.
The reality is that women have chosen NOT to be in this field... statistically. And as to why they have chosen not to do that... sexism is the least credible answer.
This should be fun.
Why do you believe sexism to be the least credible answer? Please include relevant citations.
Do you have an alternative explanation, which also explains the demographic shift we've seen since the early 1980's? Again, show your work.
The god-of-the-gaps argument doesn't hold for creationism and it doesn't hold for your argument either - just because the result is the way it is does not in any way imply sexism. In fact, in countries with institutionalised sexism there are more female scientists: you know, where females have *fewer* choices they choose maths and science. When they have more choices they choose other things. You need to show, at the very least, some sort of correlation between sexist countries and female participation.
In good relationships, you compromise.
So, no problem here then. She'll have to compromise, right?
If they spoke like you write we'd be none the wiser.
Indeed, but at least you'll be better informed :-)
(Parent quoted directly out of the article)
in India and Saudi, a woman can be killed or brutalized or ostracized for getting snippy
It seems that places with institutionalised sexism (like India) produces more females in tech than those without. Whatever the reasons for having fewer females in tech is, I highly doubt that sexism is amongst them.
The anger here is directed at professional-victims, self-righteous SJW's, self-hating white knights--and hypocrites in general.
You say that, but if you actually look at the majority of posts they are attacking women.
This is something that is easy for you to prove, so why don't you show us the evidence?
While PC-BSD would work for a lot of people who want a desktop, it didn't work for me. There was simply too much cruft. I installed FreeBSD 10.1 and am much happier with it than I was with PC-BSD.
The problem with PC-BSD is not the system, but the add-ons installed-by-default things that I don't want, like the control panel, or the software centre. Now, I could have simply uninstalled those things but I wasn't sure what dependencies existed that might kill my install. With FreeBSD it is all terminal only, until you install Xorg and a window manager. It is simple to work things out without the extra user-friendly software. I found it much simpler to simply edit a few files than to make changes via a GUI - I never knew what changes were actually being made on disk.
OTOH, perhaps it is because I used PC-BSD first that I found FreeBSD a good desktop :-)
Slashdot, will you please end the fucking obsession with feminist gripes.
Not yet. Slashdot thrives on controversial stories, pitting ideologies against science and reason. Remember when they used to post Florian Muellers every article on Sco? Or when they used to post creationist stories? Or that brief period when we had at least one LGBT discrimination story a week? Bitcoin, even?
Slashdot fully understands that creationist/feminist ideologies are subject to a wide range of debunking methods. So /. wins when they post the stories so that the majority will debunk the very obvious lack of logic while the minority get to revel in being righteous against the haters.
It's actually a win-win-win situation. Slashdot gets eyeballs, the ideological minority gets to feel that their axe is finely ground and the rest get to point out logical fallacies by the ton (thus getting to feel superior to that religious minority). A winning formula.
Perhaps a betting pool on what logic-less ideology gets bumped into the headlines next year this time? My vote goes towards the coming recession :-)
Why did there used to be more women in IT than there are now?
You repeatedly answer that statement with "It must be due to misogyny/sexism!". What makes you so sure that that's the answer? That's a leap of faith usually made by creationists when making their god-of-the-gaps argument. Just because no one yet knows the reason does not mean that your proposed reason is correct. Did you even look for any study that might disprove the "regression to the mean" answer for this statement you keep throwing out? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Seriously, arguing this is like arguing with a creationist: you assume that your answer is correct, because, well, you just feel it! Anyone who asks for actual, well, evidence that your answer is correct get's called names. Well Done!
He has a point.
So, wait... you're going to get your troll in before the other trolls arrive? Yeah, that makes sense...
You should not tell anyone what to ware, within the bounds of the law.
Other than (perhaps) AC's, no one on slashdot tells other people what to wear. Maybe you should direct your outrage towards cases where people have been punished for what they wore instead of complaining that many developers are into necrophilia with no evidence other than your outraged opinion over something that doesn't exist (many developers being into necrophilia, that is).
I believe you're criticising someone for their choice of clothing.
Yes, yes I am. There are plenty of forms of clothing I'd criticise. You see, clothing is part of someone's behaviour and behaviour is not above criticism.
So, does that mean it is okay to criticise women who dress scantily? Because ISTR that one of your previous arguments was that you cannot and should not criticise a women for the way she dresses.
So? What does that have to do with it? Why are women so special that one speaks for them all?
You tell me - it's a few feminist activists who are presuming to speak for all women.
Ah so all the complaints "don't count".
It's not that they don't count, it's just that the people who are his peers and who work with him count much much more than the opinion of someone who's only claim to fame is talking on behalf of the worlds women. It's an incredibly damaging stance to take - "world-class scientist must acquire fashion sense" - and one that is especially demeaning to actual female scientists (who may have actually worked with this man). This author who first complained about the shirt, and all others that came after her to do the same, are determined that the role of women in this endeavour that is displayed to the public is reduced to "fashion critic". If they were interested in equality they would have simply interviewed the leading female scientists instead of making fashion critiques.
I'm not sure your outlook is as egaletarian as you feel it is, because your next paragraph leads into random ad-hom about large sections of the population merely because you don't like them. Remember: there's no such thing as reverse bigotry. If you're bigoted against rich white women then you're a bigot plain and simple. The fact that they're rich and white (not sure what that has to do with this anyway) does not make your bigotry worthy, nor does it make you egalatarian.
Pointing out that the demographic (rich white women) who are complaining are the most well-off in the world, as a group, is not bigotry. I like rich white women just fine. It's only rich white women who complain that they are not getting enough that are the ones I don't like.
Disliking people because of their opinion hardly counts as bigotry.
There is nothing wrong with dressing sexy, the problem is that many developers like to combine nameless sexy females with necrophilia.
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing that you should tell women what they should be and should not be wearing?
What I don't like is that people are stepping into my video games now, continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas.
So would you really be that upset if in the next Zelda game Zelda managed to save herself without having to rely on Link yet again? Or if Princess Peach managed to jump on Bowser's head without Mario's help? It's not like it would affect the game play or anything, just make the story a bit less lame.
Or how about in the next "edgy" game you don't sex sexy, half naked female corpses all over the place? It can still be edgy and violent, just maybe in the cut scene the nameless girl doesn't fall with her panties on display or the inevitable brothel level is skipped over for something a bit more imaginative? Might even make the game better, not relying on lame tropes... Or were you really hoping for some necrophilia, to the point where your experience is ruined without it?
What do you have against scantily clad women? It's not "empowering" for women if they are told repeatedly by people like you that it is wrong for them to dress a certain way, or be a certain thing. In real life, prostitutes in brothels and strip girls in clubs are exercising their right to do what they want to - now you come along and tell them that it's wrong? Doesn't this message conflict with the one they got from Slut Walk?