Have you ever jumped across a queen-size bed and grabbed your toddler's ankle just after she walked off the edge? I had no idea I could move so fast and accurately.
And, as a parent myself, I'm sure that was from a dead-stopped position into full leap in the blink it takes a child to fall. Good catch.
Liberal reaction: shoot the other foot. Conservative reaction: shoot a poor person in the foot. Libertarian reaction: allow someone else to shoot themselves in the foot. Socialist reaction: cut off all feet so that no one can shoot themselves in the foot.
Hey, that was my first taste of it too, around '94. I was in the military, and we had some Unix exposure, so I when I found the Linux book, I figured it would be a fun project. Unfortunately, I never got too far into it, since most of our work was in Windows/DOS, and I just didn't want to put that much work into something with no reward. Also, if I had tried Red Hat instead of Slackware, it might have been easier, and I might have kept at it. who knows.
After several attempts over the years, I'm trying to get back into it again lately, with Slackware and Mint both installed on a spare laptop. Strangely, Slackware is just like I remember it.:) Mint is a pleasant surprise. Install is a breeze, most things work with no configuration needed, and it looks great.
As to the original submitter, I like the advice someone else gave earlier: Try several distros, see what you like about each, and what you think they do wrong/poorly. I'll add one thing: keep a notebook for what you are doing, with configurations and where you go to make them, where specific files are stored in each filesystem, and other details. If you want to learn the system, that will be your own spare brain after a while.
Yes the AC was full of bullshit. But I have one quibble with your stats. You have to account for how many children were killed in each case, or a large majority of them. The AC could be more correct than your stats if there were fewer fathers killing a large number of their own children, versus many times that number of mothers killing one or two children each.
And a second quibble I just realized, why stop at age 5? Does the pattern reverse itself after that cutoff?
So while the AC was just trolling (I imagine, I don't know him (or her)) I can't accept your analysis either.
Well, to be fair, CNN made the decision long ago to run two channels, which certainly keeps their percentage of news higher. Maybe Fox should start a Fox Headline News, devoted to showing the conservative stories that they don't even have time for now.
I was telling my wife (non-geek that she is) about this yesterday. She looked at the calendar and made a comment that it was appropriate that PiCon was on March 14. It took me a few seconds to understand what she meant. I think she's been watching too many 'Big Bang Theory' reruns lately.
You can run your own company on whatever principles you like. Others may prefer to have their employees observing a more professional code of conduct.
Actually, no you can't. That is the whole point of sexual harassment laws, and lawsuits. The company owner, president, CEO, etc cannot run the company however they want when it comes to sexual harassment or sexual talk among co-workers.
That's one of the points some of us are trying to make.
Honestly, from reading of her other reactions in equally non-consequential situations that she intentionally blew out of proportions, I don't think she would be able to say those words with any believable sincerity. Or without, a few days later, blasting the 'misogynists' for forcing her to say them.
On the brighter side, she will get a better paying job from one of the feminist lobbying groups or Congresscritters that love her style of hysteria.
What is the "other" section consists off? Jedi, FSM, est..?
Then they are not religious in the traditional sense and suddenly "atheism in respect to any major religion" climbs to number two after the Christians.
So you think there are only 4 religions in the world? Everyone else who thinks they are religious, are just fooling themselves, and are actually atheists? If you actually looked at the article, it lists about two dozen religions. Plus there are hundreds of religions with membership too small to list individually in that article. Maybe that's why they used the blanket category "Other" on a pie chart.
Not that I think your point is completely without basis, but I don't think that's true actually. Back in the 60's, it seems 90% of the men were misogynistic assholes who routinely told off-color jokes and sexually harassed women at work. That 90% didn't decide one day to not only stop being assholes, and to fire the few who would not stop. One individual person, male or female, asked them to stop being so crude because it was offensive. Then another individual, and another, and so on. Eventually a small chunk of society decided to make laws about it, to control the larger chunk of society that hadn't changed their ways.
So, no, I reject your hypothesis that it was all of society that decided this.
I understand that decency should guide us, especially in a professional working space. But if I can't crack a rather mild joke with my friend, while in an audience of strangers, without having to worry about hurting someone's feelings, and being fired over it, decency is out the window. Now we're into the realm of thought control.
If these guys were in a workgroup with Adria, and made the jokes, she would have better grounds for a complaint. But not sitting in an anonymous audience of thousands. Decency would dictate that she tell them to their face that she was offended, and decency would dictate all the men around them join her, which they would have. As the many women who supported the guys here and on Adria's blog have said, she stepped over the line of decency, not these two. She also pushed back women's equality in the workforce a few years.
Hell, I put a Post-it note on a woman's boob today, and stared at her boob, while saying "No, I'm not looking at your tits."
It was a demonstration of why I hate those damn "HELLO, My Name Is " nametags at conferences. Why can't they get baseball caps? Then we would be looking near their eyes, while trying to think up something non-offensive to say.
Well, you can call a guy a twat. But it may still be misunderstood.
On one forum I visit, someone mentioned the word 'twat'. Another poster couldn't understand why it was considered offensive. He actually had to ask why it was being censored by the forum into ****. He thought calling someone a twat was similar to calling them an idiot. That was the only way he had heard the word used.
What a troll and misogynist! You take the side of the offensive males (I'll therefore assume that's your gender, too)
My, how wonderfully sexist of you. There have been many comments from females that support these two males in their private conversation. And your use of "offensive" reflects your own issues, not their comments.
Secondly, there have been many males that have commented in support of Adria, and against the two men. Subtler sexism, but I could take your comment to mean no men find offense in the jokes they made.
that act like teenagers
Now throw in agism. Really. What do you have against teenagers?
in exchanging coarse and offensive remarks with others of the same mindset.
Wait a minute. You admit they were having a private conversation that someone listened in on? They were talking to someone who wasn't offended, that being each other, yet are supposed to act like their comments would offend the person they were talking to, and not say them? Please explain the logic of that to me. And use language that won't offend me. Since I have asked you to not offend me, you better not say anything that I may misconstrue as offensive. Because that is the standard you are insisting on.
All of you: Go back to your caves and live like your think, Neanderthal.
Ooh, not just angry, violent (for my easily offended sense of violence), and misandrinistic, but actually adding another -ism, speciesism. You are saying Neanderthals are less worthy, inferior, and probably stupider. (In a sentence where you make a basic grammar error. The irony; it burns.)
(And, yes, this AC is a woman who's had to put up with this kind of @)$(&^% for my entire adult life from men--mental boys, really--who lack elementary grace, empathy and, perhaps, mirror neurons!)
Sounds like they have an innate sociological condition, that prevents them from understanding certain social etiquette that they didn't create. So for your final tirade, you are singling out the handicapped. You even admit they possibly have brain damage or birth defects. Again, I must ask, why do you hate children so much?
In case you don't get it yet (and I'm sure you won't), this is not an attack against you personally. It is an attack against your attack, using your own method of amplifying your own mental anguish over things that people do and say every day. (Neanderthal? Really? That doesn't come across as sexist to you? You do realize half the Neanderthals were females don't you? Did only male Neanderthals act like Neanderthals?)
I don't blame you for feeling fed up with stupid guy things. I blame you for 1.) acting like only guys do or say offensive things, and 2.) acting like common words and actions are so far out of the norm, as to be untenable.
But it wouldn't bother others of us at all. Why are your personal feelings more important than mine? Or why is a single person's feeling more important than the other twenty people they work with?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever jumped across a queen-size bed and grabbed your toddler's ankle just after she walked off the edge? I had no idea I could move so fast and accurately.
And, as a parent myself, I'm sure that was from a dead-stopped position into full leap in the blink it takes a child to fall. Good catch.
I guess he pointed it at the police helicopter as well. What an idiot.
Actually, it is:
Liberal reaction: shoot the other foot.
Conservative reaction: shoot a poor person in the foot.
Libertarian reaction: allow someone else to shoot themselves in the foot.
Socialist reaction: cut off all feet so that no one can shoot themselves in the foot.
I thought it was funny.
You point is equal to saying an English speaker who wants to learn Latin should first learn medieval French, rather than just learning Latin itself.
Hey, that was my first taste of it too, around '94. I was in the military, and we had some Unix exposure, so I when I found the Linux book, I figured it would be a fun project. Unfortunately, I never got too far into it, since most of our work was in Windows/DOS, and I just didn't want to put that much work into something with no reward. Also, if I had tried Red Hat instead of Slackware, it might have been easier, and I might have kept at it. who knows.
After several attempts over the years, I'm trying to get back into it again lately, with Slackware and Mint both installed on a spare laptop. Strangely, Slackware is just like I remember it. :) Mint is a pleasant surprise. Install is a breeze, most things work with no configuration needed, and it looks great.
As to the original submitter, I like the advice someone else gave earlier: Try several distros, see what you like about each, and what you think they do wrong/poorly. I'll add one thing: keep a notebook for what you are doing, with configurations and where you go to make them, where specific files are stored in each filesystem, and other details. If you want to learn the system, that will be your own spare brain after a while.
Good Luck!
Yes the AC was full of bullshit. But I have one quibble with your stats. You have to account for how many children were killed in each case, or a large majority of them. The AC could be more correct than your stats if there were fewer fathers killing a large number of their own children, versus many times that number of mothers killing one or two children each.
And a second quibble I just realized, why stop at age 5? Does the pattern reverse itself after that cutoff?
So while the AC was just trolling (I imagine, I don't know him (or her)) I can't accept your analysis either.
Well, to be fair, CNN made the decision long ago to run two channels, which certainly keeps their percentage of news higher. Maybe Fox should start a Fox Headline News, devoted to showing the conservative stories that they don't even have time for now.
I was telling my wife (non-geek that she is) about this yesterday. She looked at the calendar and made a comment that it was appropriate that PiCon was on March 14. It took me a few seconds to understand what she meant. I think she's been watching too many 'Big Bang Theory' reruns lately.
You can run your own company on whatever principles you like. Others may prefer to have their employees observing a more professional code of conduct.
Actually, no you can't. That is the whole point of sexual harassment laws, and lawsuits. The company owner, president, CEO, etc cannot run the company however they want when it comes to sexual harassment or sexual talk among co-workers.
That's one of the points some of us are trying to make.
Honestly, from reading of her other reactions in equally non-consequential situations that she intentionally blew out of proportions, I don't think she would be able to say those words with any believable sincerity. Or without, a few days later, blasting the 'misogynists' for forcing her to say them.
On the brighter side, she will get a better paying job from one of the feminist lobbying groups or Congresscritters that love her style of hysteria.
What is the "other" section consists off? Jedi, FSM, est..?
Then they are not religious in the traditional sense and suddenly "atheism in respect to any major religion" climbs to number two after the Christians.
So you think there are only 4 religions in the world? Everyone else who thinks they are religious, are just fooling themselves, and are actually atheists? If you actually looked at the article, it lists about two dozen religions. Plus there are hundreds of religions with membership too small to list individually in that article. Maybe that's why they used the blanket category "Other" on a pie chart.
God should have gotten the 2-year extension plan.
Not that I think your point is completely without basis, but I don't think that's true actually. Back in the 60's, it seems 90% of the men were misogynistic assholes who routinely told off-color jokes and sexually harassed women at work. That 90% didn't decide one day to not only stop being assholes, and to fire the few who would not stop. One individual person, male or female, asked them to stop being so crude because it was offensive. Then another individual, and another, and so on. Eventually a small chunk of society decided to make laws about it, to control the larger chunk of society that hadn't changed their ways.
So, no, I reject your hypothesis that it was all of society that decided this.
I understand that decency should guide us, especially in a professional working space. But if I can't crack a rather mild joke with my friend, while in an audience of strangers, without having to worry about hurting someone's feelings, and being fired over it, decency is out the window. Now we're into the realm of thought control.
If these guys were in a workgroup with Adria, and made the jokes, she would have better grounds for a complaint. But not sitting in an anonymous audience of thousands. Decency would dictate that she tell them to their face that she was offended, and decency would dictate all the men around them join her, which they would have. As the many women who supported the guys here and on Adria's blog have said, she stepped over the line of decency, not these two. She also pushed back women's equality in the workforce a few years.
Stop conflating rights as a citizen with employment. You can stand on a corner and voice as many double entendres as you want.
I'm pretty sure the cops would give you a ticket pretty quick if you actually did that. Public nuisance laws would come into play.
No. Because not allowing sexually charged jokes between men is central to Ms. Richards being a female.
Some of us don't think we should have to accommodate her neuroses.
Also, it comes off as a bit sexist to imply only men make sexually charged jokes.
Hell, I put a Post-it note on a woman's boob today, and stared at her boob, while saying "No, I'm not looking at your tits."
It was a demonstration of why I hate those damn "HELLO, My Name Is " nametags at conferences. Why can't they get baseball caps? Then we would be looking near their eyes, while trying to think up something non-offensive to say.
It would be safer to assume he was fired because of the bad publicity his company received. And that now she has been fired for the same reason.
No former [sexual term removed] needed.
You sexist bastard.
Depends which side of the asshole you're on
Ewwww!!
Well, you can call a guy a twat. But it may still be misunderstood.
On one forum I visit, someone mentioned the word 'twat'. Another poster couldn't understand why it was considered offensive. He actually had to ask why it was being censored by the forum into ****. He thought calling someone a twat was similar to calling them an idiot. That was the only way he had heard the word used.
What a troll and misogynist! You take the side of the offensive males (I'll therefore assume that's your gender, too)
My, how wonderfully sexist of you. There have been many comments from females that support these two males in their private conversation. And your use of "offensive" reflects your own issues, not their comments.
Secondly, there have been many males that have commented in support of Adria, and against the two men. Subtler sexism, but I could take your comment to mean no men find offense in the jokes they made.
that act like teenagers
Now throw in agism. Really. What do you have against teenagers?
in exchanging coarse and offensive remarks with others of the same mindset.
Wait a minute. You admit they were having a private conversation that someone listened in on? They were talking to someone who wasn't offended, that being each other, yet are supposed to act like their comments would offend the person they were talking to, and not say them? Please explain the logic of that to me. And use language that won't offend me. Since I have asked you to not offend me, you better not say anything that I may misconstrue as offensive. Because that is the standard you are insisting on.
All of you: Go back to your caves and live like your think, Neanderthal.
Ooh, not just angry, violent (for my easily offended sense of violence), and misandrinistic, but actually adding another -ism, speciesism. You are saying Neanderthals are less worthy, inferior, and probably stupider. (In a sentence where you make a basic grammar error. The irony; it burns.)
(And, yes, this AC is a woman who's had to put up with this kind of @)$(&^% for my entire adult life from men--mental boys, really--who lack elementary grace, empathy and, perhaps, mirror neurons!)
Sounds like they have an innate sociological condition, that prevents them from understanding certain social etiquette that they didn't create. So for your final tirade, you are singling out the handicapped. You even admit they possibly have brain damage or birth defects. Again, I must ask, why do you hate children so much?
In case you don't get it yet (and I'm sure you won't), this is not an attack against you personally. It is an attack against your attack, using your own method of amplifying your own mental anguish over things that people do and say every day. (Neanderthal? Really? That doesn't come across as sexist to you? You do realize half the Neanderthals were females don't you? Did only male Neanderthals act like Neanderthals?)
I don't blame you for feeling fed up with stupid guy things. I blame you for 1.) acting like only guys do or say offensive things, and 2.) acting like common words and actions are so far out of the norm, as to be untenable.
But it wouldn't bother others of us at all. Why are your personal feelings more important than mine? Or why is a single person's feeling more important than the other twenty people they work with?
But a head for a head stops beheadings pretty quickly.
So, you're saying she shaves down there?