You have, through the course if this discussion, begged several questions. Your assumptions have been:
1. That words and phrases can have only one meaning. 2. That the first meaning wins. 3. That the most official/authoritative meaning wins. 4. If any two meanings are contradictory or confusing, then one of them is no longer valid (the way you choose is somewhere in items 1, 2 and 3 above).
Of course, I know that you probably don't really believe any of those, but you have used them to further your position.
You've also used ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that stand out.
The *fact* is that words and phrases can have multiple meanings. The *fact* is that those multiple meanings can be contradictory. The *fact* is that meanings from "official, authoritative" sources can co-exist with meanings from more vulgar sources. The *fact* is that different meanings can cause confusion. The *fact* is there is no official arbiter who can enforce any one meaning universally, or authoritatively banish a meaning.
None of these facts, it seems to me, can be reasonably disputed. Not liking how things are does not negate reality.
You are right when you say "to beg the question" means "to assume what needs proving" (or some variation thereof), you are wrong when you state that that is the only valid or correct meaning.
And here's the kicker. Let's say you manage, through a rigorous campaign, end the common usage and convince everyone to use the "superior" definition (hey, I'll donate to that cause), you will still not have fully extinguished that meaning from validity. You'll have removed it from common usage, but the phrase is still valid so long as any texts that use it exist, or so long as anyone remembers it exists, etc. It does, however, become archaic.
I agree completely that the more formal definition is superior, and I commiserate in its degradation in common usage. But I accept that it has been degraded, and accept that, although I don't like it, the common usage has become a valid usage. There is no law in nature or language that requires I like how things are, nor is there any restriction in language that makes confusing or contradictory definitions impossible. I'm not arguing against your attempt to educate people about the "superior" meaning, I'm only arguing against the notion that people are wrong. They aren't wrong. The very fact that people can use it to successfully communicate is what makes it right. The first few people to get it wrong really did get it wrong, but once it becomes common, it's game over. That doesn't make the original meaning wrong, either. Both are right. One is more nuanced and meaningful, the other is more common. They both address a similar issue, and have somewhat incompatible meanings. Languages grow and change, and not always for the better. Them's the breaks. You can't change that.
Nope, it's not a matter of opinion at all. If people use a phrase, consistently, in a certain way, the phrase means what the usage implies, no matter what you believe.
"Beg the question" has a formal meaning. I'm not "artificially" dividing the language into formal and informal, I'm describing a natural separation. "Formal" is what snobbish academics will tell you your words mean, informal is your words meaning whatever works in common prose.
There is no single authority on the English language. Trying to pretend that there is a One True Language is to deny reality.
"To beg the question" became a phrase when a bunch of philosophers decided to translate a latin phrase into English. Those philosophers have no special authority over the English language. They cannot arbitrarily tell anyone else what a phrase actually means. They can merely use a word or phrase in a certain way, and if it catches on, it becomes recognized as "valid".
Likewise, when a word or phrase is used in a new way (and by 'new', this almost certainly always means 'incorrect'), if it becomes common enough, it becomes valid. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
In common parlance, "begs the question" means something, and you have absolutely no authority to tell people they are wrong. In fact, they are very much right, because the phrase has become understood to mean what they mean it to mean, and not what you believe it should mean.
Of course, the original meaning of the phrase still exists, and philosophers and logicians still benefit from it and recognize it, but it's become a specialized niche meaning. That's reality. I, like you, prefer that meaning, but I, unlike you, am willing to accept reality as it is, and not pretend it is what I think it should be.
Now, I tried to point out this fact of reality to you, and since it truly does cause confusion and frustration, especially from the old guard, I offered some advice on how to look at it so maybe you'll be able to not feel it's such an abomination, but a normal function of the language, but you decided to just shrug it all off.
You are correct to say it's problematic, but you are wrong to say it's foolish for people to accept follow-on meanings. If that were the case, we'd be speaking in ye olde English.
While I can't offer any solution to the problem (it's a problem that's inherent in any open language system), I can offer some advice with how to look at it.
First off, there's formal and informal. A lot of words and phrases are acceptable on an informal level, which are absolutely wrong in a formal level. "Irregardless", "I could care less", "ain't", not using "whom", and of course, slang in general, are all informal and correct usage, but are not formal English (although some are being accepted more and more as formal English). The same goes for grammar in general.
Second, there are different contexts. In specialized fields, words and phrases take on specific meanings which aren't there in the general (even formal) usage.
Lastly, there are different senses for words and phrases (this doesn't really apply here so I'll leave it at that, just trying to be thorough with the list).
Formally, "beg the question" means something different (although somewhat similar) to the informal meaning. In specialized fields (primarily, logic and philosophy), they use the formal meaning, most everyone else uses the informal meaning. Which came first is irrelevant when it comes to the current state of affairs. Currently, the informal usage is well-established, and nothing you do will change that. It's a fact of life you'll just have to deal with.
That doesn't mean there's nothing you can do. You can do as you're doing now, which is to try to educate as many people as possible (without coming across as a pedant or a snob, otherwise you'll be working against your goals) to the formal (and, in my opinion, more useful) meaning.
And you're wrong when you say that the phrase has no equivalents. What's wrong with saying, "you are assuming what you are trying to prove", or "you are assuming something that first needs to be proved"? They're not as short, but they work, and pretty much everyone will understand what you mean.
It's not news that lithium burns when exposed to water (including moisture in the air). What is news is that it happened in a consumer device under seemingly normal conditions.
Imagine, those silly consumers thinking it'd be worthwhile to know if things often used on or near one's body have exploded in real-world usage! Fortunately, the news is that it happened once, not that it's happening a lot.
Besides, even the phenomenon itself is news to most people (they have no understanding of the chemical properties of lithium). As an EE (or expert in any field), you should be used to hearing things on the news you already knew.
As a EE, I can say with authority that it's easy to design a very safe battery management system. It's when production cost reduction folks get involved and cut corners that things often go wrong, or when someone thinks they can optimize something without a full understanding
Like hell it's a common occurrence. It's very, very, rare for a notebook computer to burst into flames and explode. If it was common, you'd have heard about it on the news how it happened at a local Starbucks, college, or airline flight, fairly often. You'd hear stories of IT workers saying, "avoid this notebook because it's very common for it to bursts into flames and explodes".
No, it's not common at all.
Also, nice try attempting to pretend like this was due to user error. Unlike the iBook, the Dell was not placed on a carpet. It was on a table. Granted, there's a tablecloth, but that's very much unlike a carpet. Did you happen to notice all the other notebooks on the very same tablecloths?
To recap, it's very rare, it has happened to an iBook G4, although under more severe conditions, and the resulting fire was significantly less extreme.
That's rather disappointing. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of with your, "I attack you, then define any defense by you a win for me." nonsense. Oh well, it happens.
hiring someone merely to balance out a gender ratio is in and of itself sexist
Agreed.
How do you think a fully competent man would feel knowing he didn't get the job just because an incompetent woman got the job over him just because she's a woman?
Almost certainly outraged. How do you think a fully competent woman would feel knowing she didn't get the job just because an incompetent man got the job over her just because he's a man?
The point here, is, that the question is raised as to whether the latter is a significant problem. Both assuredly exist. You raise the question if the former is a significant problem. I don't believe it is, but if it is I agree fully that something must be done about it.
Not everywhere will you find these preconceived notions of female "inferiority" when it comes to tech. Please keep that in mind.
It doesn't have to happen everywhere to be a problem, it just has to happen enough. There's always going to be some imbalances and injustices no matter what you do, but at some point the signal becomes stronger than the noise. Given the extreme disparity between men and women in IT/programming/etc, it's certainly warranted to look into it, no?
Your High School YTE highlights this. If girls outnumber boys in it, what happens between there and their entry into the workforce? It raises another possibility: perhaps the disparity we are seeing today is a result of sexism of the past (60s, 70s, 80s), and as sexism is further decreasing throughout the 90s and 00s, we'll see a marked improvement throughout the 10s and 20s? I really do not know, but it's definitely worth looking into.
When I was talking about the burden of proof I was referring directly to your questions:
Do you realize how silly it is that you require I be able to prove the answers to my questions when I clearly state that I do not know the answers to them--when, in fact, the very topic at hand is whether they are legitimate questions to look into?
The problem with fallacies is that you can dance circles around them all day, and not get anywhere; It's a waste of time.
The problem with fallacies is that they refer to formal logic. I am not attempting to prove that women are significantly suppressed in the IT field. What I am attempting to do is present it as a legitimate question, and one that should be addressed.
By your reasoning, anything that isn't known for certain must be treated as a logical fallacy and therefore not studied. How many times a day are you required to act without absolute assuredness of the answer? Do you defer on the basis of "logical fallacy"? Do you decide not to bring in an exterminator to look at your house if you suspect, but do not absolutely know, that you have a termite problem? Do you hold off on taking your car to the mechanic until you are absolutely certain about what is wrong with it? Would you not take your child to the hospital until it's absolutely clear that that rash really is serious?
Again, I do think that the gender difference in IT is more a result of interest than of opportunity.
An assertion for which you have no backing. Ie. a fallacious argument (by your standards). The fact is that neither of us can prove our opinion. The difference is that my opinion is supported (but not proven) by history and reasonable expectations based on how some people are still known, for certain, to act today. It does not prove my assertion, but it does make it more than reasonable to study.
If a person is interested enough, they will find a way to learn about the topic of their interest.
You have two identical groups, consisting of people with identical levels of aptitude and interest. Which group is going to be more successful?:
The group that has the support and encouragement of others.
The group that is persistently, even if mildly, discouraged by others.
How many people eventually give up? For how many of those is giving up not an act of will, but a subconscious, automatic, emotional response to avoid negative stimuli?
Again, I am not attempting to prove that this is the case here. It is, however, well known and understood that these things happen, and all of the hallmarks exist in this situation, warranting study into the question, and if necessary, corrective action be taken.
I don't normally reply to people who just post to call me a troll, but since you didn't post AC, I will in this case.
Do you care to back up those accusations? What makes you think I'm trolling? My posts are all my honest viewpoint, not intended simply to get people to waste their time or to upset them. I also believe my posts put forth a valid point-of-view, or expose flaws in what others are saying.
As for the need for the last word, that's equally baffling. While I have in the past (and almost certainly will in the future) engaged in threads which have gone on far longer than they probably should have, I don't see how this is even remotely the case on this thread. I have replied to almost all of those who've responded to me (which is a rarity for me to do, as it takes a lot of time and is often pointless). This time I both had the time and felt it was warranted. I don't see, though, how it's wrong to reply to someone in a conversation. (given your username, it seems strange to me you'd think otherwise)
In any case, my motives are not those that you are ascribing to me.
It mostly just promotes mediocrity, but it does also promote injustice, a warped sense of entitlement, and insensitivity -- if not outright denial -- about gender differences.
Don't try to pretend that your statement and the AC's statement are equal. In your statement, one can have a rational debate. The AC's statement was demonstrably false, and attempt to circumvent any further discussion.
people who call philosophies they disagree with "ignorant", btw, flag themselves as arrogant non-thinkers.
Some philosophies are ignorant. But I wasn't calling his philosophy ignorant in that quote, I was calling his putting forth, as absolute fact, something that is so easily disproved, as ignorant. But if it makes you feel better, I do believe the philosophy I assume he holds to be ignorant--the reason being that I believe his philosophy is predicated on ignorance, ie. to not seek actual answers to serious questions, but to latch onto the simplest, least demanding answer, without regards to whether it matches with reality. In other words, a predominantly dogmatic philosophy.
anyone not blinded by a communist-era mono-gender ideological prejudice
Nice try. My philosophy is in no way based on Communism, nor do I have any great level of sympathy for Communism except for the fact that I can understand why people find it appealing. The problem with Communism is exactly the same as lies with Egoism or pure Capitalism--specifically that it takes an ideal and promotes it far beyond any semblance of reality or reason.
the sexes are very different from each other, and are generally interested in different things
This raises two issues. The first is how much of the differences is nature, how much is nurture. The second is, regardless of the inherent differences, as far as society is concerned, is one sex better off than the other? In all such cases, I advocate learning more in an attempt to understand and honor our differences, as well as attempt to correct any injustices. You seem to think I only want to make everyone equal--I can understand the knee-jerk reaction which would lead to such a conclusion, but in my case it's an absolutely false accusation. I get in arguments with men who think the status quo is A-OK, and I get in argument with women when I state that the average man is stronger than the average women, which brings us from the general, to the specific...
In general, your point that women may naturally be inclined towards some topics more than others. While I suspect that is true to some extent, I also suspect that the level of disparity between the sexes in that regard is not solely due to biological, physiological differences or inherent psychological differences. If it is, then the only general question regarding the sexes is, if one sex is less well-off than the other, what can or should be done about it?
But on to the specifics. Regardless of any overall trends between the genders, it's undeniable that there will always be women who are extremely interested in the same sorts of things men are, and vice-versa. What about them? How many women are turned away from technology education and careers who actually want to enter the field? Even if the natural balance in the field would be (just picking numbers weighted against what I expect to be accurate) 80-20, does reality match nature? Almost assuredly not. Therefore it's only rational that something be done about it. I don't simply mean quotas and equal-opportunity lawsuits, but something that actually addresses the problem at it's core, and leads to actual results.
So ask yourself what beliefs, assumptions, prejudices or predilections you have which lead to such a circumvention of logic and rationality.
Show me such a willful act of circumvention of logic and rationality on my part as that of the AC's, and I'l
Filed a discrimination suit of course. Claimed it was because she was a woman and a minority she was being kept down. They instantaly capitulated and promoted her.
Case in point. She abused the system (assuming your assessment of her skills and qualifications is accurate). The company should not have capitulated, they should have looked into the matter, and made a rational decision. I know this doesn't always happen, but addressing the problems with a system is how you make things better, not scrapping the whole thing because it didn't work here or there.
Have to keep it "fair" and all.
You are lying, and you know it. If she was "wrongfully" promoted, that's not fair at all.
You can see why things like this might give some people a bad impression of affarmitive action.
Yes, I can. But that does not excuse the ignorant behavior shown by the AC I replied to.
Every system that is meant to truly help people can be, has been, and will always be, abused. That requires us to take a look at the system. Can the abuse be mitigated? Can the system be altered to eliminate the abuse, while still providing the benefits for which it exists? Do the abuses outweigh any benefit whatsoever?
In the case of this specific system, to me it's acceptable that some cases like you point out occur, so long as the overall equality of the system benefits (and by "overall equality", I mean with regards to both sexes, not just that more women get better positions). This is not unlike the laws which allow people clearly guilty of a crime (even murder) go free if the state fails to follow certain rules. The reason for that is not because anyone wants murderers to go free, but because these rules help to ensure that other, more widespread, injustices do not occur.
If there are girls and young women who are turned away unfairly from embarking on technology education and careers, and if there are women who are discriminated against in the workplace, would you deny them justice and equality just because your co-worker gamed the system?
No, it isn't. It's on the Anonymous Coward who stated, clearly, that "All that we can accomplish by trying to perform gender balances is to promote mediocracy from the minority gender."
Your argument amounts to little more than "Isn't it possible that women don't have the same opportunities, etc?"
Great work there, Sherlock, that is exactly my argument. Stating my thesis back at me is a strange argument tactic, as I've made no attempt to hide it.
Your statements call into question the possibility of an injustice. You need to demonstrate an actual injustice before considerable monies and social programs are used to try and correct this perceived problem.
If we did as you suggest, societal progress would be severely retarded. Yes, my statements bring up the question of possible injustice. But these aren't just vacuous words, they are words based on observation. What needs to be done is to study the situation. Is it fair? Then bravo, we are doing good, case closed. Is it unfair? Then let's do something about it. But to do nothing whatsoever, as you suggest, ensures that injustices will not only happen, but flourish. Perhaps not in this case (although it's my opinion that it is happening in this case), but in some other similar case where you would have us apply your "wait and see, but do nothing that would cause me to actually see" approach.
So, basically, I refuse to argue this on your terms.
What "terms" have I laid out? Terms that if something is unknown, and potentially dangerous, and is reasonably likely to occur, that we ought to look into it? Sheesh, silly me and my logical "terms".
However, I do think that the high percentage of men in IT compared to women is more a result of a difference between the sexes than it is a lack of educational opportunities.
Ignoring the fact that your argument is just as anecdotal as mine, which severely undermines of all your chiding above...
The point of my post was to point out the obvious illogic in the AC's post, and call into question what makes someone believe so fervently in something so easily disproved. I freely admit that I do not know, as a matter of incontrovertible fact, that the positions women hold in the various IT and computer technology fields is fair, nor do I know if girls and young women have fair and equitable opportunities as they are growing up. I do know that these sorts of things are common, and I have personally seem more discrimination against women than against men in both school and the workplace. Enough, in fact, for me to support looking into the matter, and if something is wrong, to support attempts to fix it.
Since you seem to disagree with my post so strongly, does that mean you believe that attempts at fixing perceived social inequalities can only promote mediocrity? Because that was the primary issue I was addressing.
In other words, you are saying people are fully rational, without an ounce of subjectivity.
How many parents, do you suppose, buy dolls for their little girls, and electronic toys for their little boys? How many teachers recognize technological curiosity in boys and nurture it, while seen the same tendencies in girls as unrealistic or as quaint little phases? How many bosses and managers see the dorky-looking man as a competent engineer, but the dorky-looking woman as kinda ugly and maybe they'd rather not work with her?
Are these people all irrational and/or outright ignorant morons? Absolutely. Does that mean they therefore don't exist, and thus their negative influences need not be counteracted? Of course not!
You parsed that sentence incorrectly. By, "women's positions in the field," I meant, "the positions women currently hold," and not, "positions reserved for women".
Those poor women with no drive to get those things for themselves. You know personal motivation has to come into it at some stage?
I refer you back to my original set of questions for you; the ones questioning your character flaws and motivations for such irrationality.
How many young girls never get into computers, because parents and teachers never even think that a girl might be interested in programming? How much interest does a boy have to show in computing to get offered by an adult to teach him more about computers? How many girls have shown even more interest, only to be turned away? How many girls don't even let their own interests show for fear of just being scoffed at by adults ("oh, that silly girl thinks she's going to become a computer scientist!"), or by friends, ("eww, why do you want to use a computer? you don't want to be a dork, do you?").
You also act like somehow children have a fully-developed sense of self and ego, and full command over their lives--as though it's their fault for not achieving their fullest potential, even when the odds are stacked against them. How many young adult women in high school and college never enter into technology courses at all, because that spark that once flickered in their youth was doused instead of nurtured?
But, once again, you show your willful ignorance, and promote a notion that is easily shown as irrational. For what you suggest to be true, you'd have to take as given that the social structures which affect us cannot work against us, cannot hinder our growth, and cannot affect different groups and classes in society differently.
Answer my question, why do you feel compelled to promote something so horrendously irrational, and worse, something that actively works against achieving any real progress in society? Why is it that you don't put any effort into making sure your notions fit with reality? What, exactly, is your defect?
My guess is that you tend to latch onto the first idea that fits a problem requiring the least amount of change on your part. Women are underrepresented in the technology fields? "They're just too stupid^W^W not technologically inclined." Girls aren't given the same quality of opportunities as boys? "They just need to take the initiative."
Do you notice how your responses assume, without evidence and therefore without logic or reason, that there is nothing unjust with the status quo? What are the odds, do you suppose, that somehow the current state of affairs happens to be exactly ideal? Do you notice how, if things aren't fair (a possibility you must grant, if you are at all honest about the extent to which you can rationally judge the situation), that you are blaming the victim? How can you stand to be so intellectually dishonest and socially destructive?
All that we can accomplish by trying to perform gender balances is to promote mediocracy from the minority gender.
Ignorant nonsense, but a common defense of the status quo.
Do you truly think that attempts at gender equality can only accomplish the promotion of mediocrity (I think you meant mediocrity, not mediocracy, although in either case my response is the same), and nothing else whatsoever?
Are you certain that:
Currently, women's positions in the field accurately matches their skills and qualifications?
Girls and young women are given adequate education, motivation, and acceptance when it comes to even considering entering the field?
Given that you don't know, for a fact, that the answer to both of those questions is 'yes', then how can you possibly know that addressing those issues cannot help, but can only promote mediocrity?
Now, be honest. You don't actually know the answer to those two questions. You know there are other possible outcomes besides the promotion of mediocrity (or mediocracy). So why--truly, honestly, why--did you make the statement above? What beliefs, assumptions, prejudices or predilections do you have which lead to such a circumvention of logic and rationality?
Did you need specific examples? I suppose you could ask him what he rattled off but it is very clear that he did give apple names of people that had contacted him.
Actually, yes, the whole point of asking for specific examples is to be provided with specific examples. Apple asked him if anyone had actually complained to him that they cannot recompile the kernel. You don't respond with vagueries like "I know lots of organizations which value open source software".
It's worse than that, though. He's fighting against his own best interest. If he wants Apple to re-open the kernel, there's no better way to do so than to point out that there are *actual* people who *actually* want to recompile the kernel. If no one is *actually* complaining about something they *actually* want to do, that removes a lot of motivation for Apple to give them that option.
Tom Yager goes on to accuse Apple of suggesting people who recompile kernels are an "underclass". Way to create a straw man, Tom Yager. How easy it is to knock that down.
He didn't say that. He was talking about his readers who may or may not recompile kernels.
It's really funny, then, that you quote him saying exactly that:
I go on the defensive whenever a vendor suggests that any portion of my readership is an underclass because of its numbers.
...
He is preaching to the choir, but sensationalism it is not.
Nice try. Claiming it's not "sensationalism" is not the same as saying it's not "yellow journalism" (what the OP actually said). But even so, you don't call, "Yet no story is more timely, or more broadly relevant, than this one." sensationalism? Timely? Not really, but even that sensationalistic claim pales in comparison to "more broadly relevant". *Broadly*? To who? There are tens of millions of Mac users. You'd have to take an extremely distorted point of view to see the extremely small fraction of those users who have any desire to recompile the kernel as broad, let alone to consider the subject of the article as the most broadly relevent story of all.
He actually has a desire to recompile the kernel and not get ad hits as far as this article appears.
I think he wants both. But that's irrelevant to the topic of the quality of his journalism.
None of which the PM of France is likely to be even peripherally aware.
If the PM was aware, the meeting wouldn't be necessary. The whole *point* of the meeting was to bring awareness to the PM.
Earned my respect? Sure. Earned the Prime Minister's respect. Doubtful.
Are you suggesting that all it takes is a suit and a shave to earn a PM's respect?
The most important part of being persuasive is to know your audience. This is the part RMS is ignoring, either out of ignorance or arrogance. In his audience assessment, as in yours, he and you have failed to correctly determine whether or not his *audience* knows *him*. Making this assumption is foolish and embarrassing at best, and damning at worst.
This is entirely irrelevant. He's not there to impress the PM with his looks, he was there to impress him with his ideas. If the PM had accepted his request (via letter, so personal appearance won't have played into it), he would not have shunned him just because of his beard and lack of suit. He might think poorly of RMS's personal appearance, but he's not going to dismiss RMS out-of-hand because of it. You don't (generally) get to such high office by ignoring powerful ideas merely because the packaging is grungy.
My friend, if this advice were not helpful, it wouldn't have had to be given.
You haven't demonstrated it needs to be given. Did you mean to imply that had RMS shaved and wore a suit, the PM would have met with him?
You are acting like RMS is embarking on a political career. He is not. As I said before, if he was looking to break into a new field with no prior accomplishments (as an actual politician, he is a neophyte), then your advice should be well-received. But he's not. He's basically an emissary from the Free Software movement. You don't demand emissaries change their appearance to suit your tastes, you accept them as they are, party out of respect for the other group, and partly to get to know more *about* that group.
His goals are not what you seem to think they are. As I said, I can somewhat understand the suggestion at getting a suit, but do you seriously think he should shave of years worth of beard for one freaking meeting?! You might not think beards are all that great, but obviously RMS does.
No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative.
Life isn't binary. Coercion is a very bad thing, even if it's not some sort of absolute slavery or absolute imprisonment. By your logic, I could construct a campus with a difficult, but not impossible, to pass through exit, yet a very, very easy (and in fact, enticing) entrance. I could then tell the people who freely entered my campus, "work for me or leave, you are free to go", and I'm just fine in your book?
Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me.
Why not? On what grounds do you dismiss them?
Who cares if there are more female than male workers? What possible bearing does this have on the situation? (I'm trying to figure out exactly why this was mentioned, because it's clearly intended to imply something, though I'm not quite sure what.)
We tend to be more callous towards the plight of men than women, so the distinction serves the purpose of the article, which is to report on working conditions that are almost certainly not what the average westerner would be comfortable being a party to.
How, precisely and specifically, has Apple "staked its image" on "progressive politics"?
Apple is known for being a progressive company and promotes both a philosophy and a lifestyle that's appealing to progressive/liberal people. In this way, Apple is a lot like Starbucks and Nike. You may not see the similarities, but they are certainly there.
I'm fairly certain that this will be read by a number of people who think that corporations and corporate behavior are inherently "evil", and that the larger a company or business interest is, the more "evil" it is and indeed must be by definition, which is an awfully one-sided and half-blind way to look at corporations.
I'm fairly certain that the number of people who feel that way is extremely small. Most people who are anti-this-corporation-or-another aren't anti-success or anti-business, they just judge businesses by how they affect the world, and not simply on how much money they make.
I'd expect and hope, from a supposedly intelligent group of readers, that the majority of the comments here will be examining China's labor laws and China's human rights record, and mechanisms via which those might be changed and how responsible governments of the world can affect that change, rather than thinking about ways that corporations that legally do business in China may be further targeted.
The point here is that you and I can't do much about what China does, but we can have some impact on what Apple (and Nike, etc) do.
There's something to be said about the notion that if Apple were to simply pull out of China, the people who are borderline slaves will be even worse off, but *don't* pretend that that makes it OK. I really don't know the answer to this sort of problem, but I'd definitely be happier to know that Apple puts an effort to provide better working conditions than are the norm for the area (better pay, less hours, better benefits, those sorts of things), even if that means higher prices for me. On the other hand, unless Dell, HP, etc, do the same, that will put Apple at a distinct disadvantage.
BTW, this is *exactly* the sort of reason government standards (the sort of thing conservates seem to really hate) are important and beneficial. There are situations which can be better if all parties agree, but if any one party tries to make change for the better alone or in limited numbers, they are punished, which keeps the system in a sub-optimal equilibrium. See "the prisoner's dilemma", or study John Nash's Nobel Prize winning work for more insight on the topic.
RMS's character is well established, and it would be *foolish* for him to do as you suggest. The importance of RMS isn't based on his appearance, but on his ideals and his efforts and accomplishments in furthering them.
I can almost understand the advice to dress formally--while shallow and superficial, it's not a bad idea--but the emphasis on shaving is really appalling on your part.
It gets even worse:
You want respect (and that's what this is all about, right?), you need to:
Give it. Earn it.
This is absolutely amazing. Do you not realize that RMS:
1. *Has* more respect than you could ever hope to have. 2. Is internationally famous for his actions which he, himself, describes as respecting his fellow man. 3. Has devoted so much of his life to this selfless cause that it's the height of irony to suggest he hasn't actually *earned* the respect he has gained.
What you've given is advice for some young lad/lass who's just getting started on a career, and has no prior accomplishments or distinguishing attributes. In that case, by all means, your advice is excellent. But for someone who has such a distinguished and accomplished life has RMS has, your advice is really not helpful whatsoever.
It seems that one of two things must be true here. Either we agree, in which case your response to the OP doesn't logically follow, or you misunderstood my point.
The OP was saying that seeking nothing but money is bad. You responded by saying that money is important. The OP wasn't saying that money isn't important, he was decrying the sole pursuit of money.
Every game I've seen that sits on DirectX does so through an abstraction layer.
I'm not experienced in this area, although I must wonder about your sample size. How many games have you seen to know if this is common or not?
And even assuming almost every game sits entirely on an abstraction layer above DirectX, the end result is that they are still tied to Windows, and any other API set with which that abstraction layer can interface. And more specifically, these games do not find themselves easily ported to OS X. I realize that there is more to it than just changing the checkbox from "Windows" to "OS X" in the compiler, but companies like Id and Blizzard have had little difficulty in the past releasing games for both Mac and Windows, while other companies seem to have more of a difficulty with it, and some don't do it at all, even though the demand for their game is really quite high (Half-Life and HL2, for example, would sell quite well for OS X).
So, even if the non-ported games are directly written to DirectX, or interface through an abstraction layer, the end result is the same, and so it doesn't seem like that abstraction layer is helping much. So maybe I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that writing a game for cross-platform APIs like OpenGL, OpenAL and SDL (for example) would not make it easier to port a game to OS X than the way games are currently being written? Because not only does that seem counterintuitive, just looking at how things seem to work out implies that that's not true as well.
Best selling != best. Most popular != best. Most widely appealing != best. Most economically successful != best.
Addressing your example, Mac OS X is a better OS than Windows. In fact, it's rather silly of you to contend that Mac OS X is superior to Windows, yet that capitalism has decided Windows is the best OS. Which is it? Actually, no, it's not that you're being silly. You're doing something much worse. You are taking a theory about capitalism, and treating the theory as a law which reality *must* obey. If your theory about capitalism is true, then *you must know beyond a shadow of a doubt* that Windows is superior to OS X, and that you are being extremely irrational in choosing Macs over Windows PCs.
Which is it? Is your theory about capitalism true? Or is reality true, and your theory needs adjusting?
Very few people actually choose Windows because it's the best OS, they choose it for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality of the OS. They choose it:
Because that's the OS they know
Because it comes with the cheapest computer
Because the software they want to run only runs on Windows
Because almost everyone they know run Windows, and it's easier to just go with the flow
Absolutely *none* of those reasons have anything to do with being the best, even though they are all valid reasons for choosing Windows.
No, the parent that I responded to said that there was no performance different between Mac and Windows--THAT'S what I was responding to.
It doesn't seem to me that he was saying they are equal in performance, but that modern Macs are fully capable of running any modern game (technologically speaking, obviously they don't all run natively under OS X).
But--it's still pretty far behind windows (you seem to think the difference is small--I don't think it is. WoW is almost more playable at times on my 2Ghz athlon-xp with geforce3 than my 1.5 year old Aluminum powerbook). That was my only point.
If you limit the discussion to PowerPC Macs, then I'd agree that anything less than a G5 is going to underperform on any modern game, but the Intel Macs are really quite fast, and any speed difference between OS X and Windows is pretty small.
I'm not sure what your last point is, but I do sometimes play WoW and other games on my much older PC.
I was mostly responding the your assertion that gaming on OS X is not ideal. My point being that even if it's not ideal: a. the difference isn't that big and b. even if that performance gap is never bridged, gaming on OS X is legitimate and Apple should promote it more (IOW, even if a top-of-the-line Windows PC gets 10 more fps on Oblivion than a top-of-the-line Mac, that doesn't mean Mac users won't want to play it. After all, I'd wager most PCs happily running Oblivion today get fewer fps than Oblivion would on an Intel iMac).
You might not disagree with that point much, I'm not sure, but that isn't clear, so I put it out there.
OP: It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money.
You: The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
Spot the difference.
No one is saying game companies shouldn't worry about making money, but that they should, first and foremost, care about making great games. Money just happens to be the second-most critical requirement for making great games (the first is talent).
Think about it personally. Do you only care about making money? No. Do you care about making money? Yes. Big difference.
To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc.
Except for those that go with DirectX, which do, sadly, exist.
Do you buy things you can't afford?
C'mon, this is America. Of *course* we do. But no one is asking came companies to buy (develop) a game they can't afford. Instead, we just want them to make the best games that they can afford, and not simply make the games that will make them the most money regardless of quality.
Of course, you might ask, "why should a company not seek the most money possible?" That's a shallow question (not aimed at you, unless it's a question you'd ask). Companies are made of people, and people will often prefer to be involved with a quality project. Companies exist solely to serve people, and people desire quality products. It's really up to the people in the corporation to choose the balance between quality and profit, although it's my opinion that profit is chosen in a proportion greater than the people involved would prefer, which brings us full circle to the OP's lament.
Uh, yeah, that's sort of the point of THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. Apple needs to make more efforts to promote OS X as a gaming platform. Duh.
You mention OpenGL--take a look at the world of warcraft Mac technical support forum, or various benchmarks sets. On identical hardware, OSX WoW performance lags very far behind windows.
Irrelevant to the topic the poster mentioned, which is that OpenGL is cross-platform and DirectX isn't. A game that's 10%-20% slower than the Windows counterpart is infinitely superior to a game that isn't available because it uses DirectX.
However, to the general topic at hand, Apple needs to improve the gaming performance of OS X (which they actually do--reading the Blizzard forums like you suggest, you'll notice performance increasing patches often depend on OS X updates).
Lastly, even given game performance is less (by a small amount unless you're the overclocking-for-an-extra-7-fps type), Apple needs to promote gaming on OS X, even if they do nothing about improving performance, because people will still want to play games on their Macs. After all, do you not play a game just because *your* PC is 10% slower than the ideal-turn-the-options-to-11 PC?
yet somehow you believe you are entitled to own them.
Not in the slightest. I believe no one can own an idea short of keeping it to themselves. Once they do, *reality* dictates they no longer own the copies in other people's minds or contained on other people's possessions. That fact of reality works against the need of humans to make money, and the desire of humans to create and consume art. Because reality and our desires are in contradiction, it's rational to create laws which violate reality and grant logical ownership to the content creators. Because that violates reality, it needs to be limited, both in scope and over time.
This is a case of "you can't eat your cake and have it, too", therefore a balance needs to be maintained. Right now the balance is exceedingly weighted in favor of IP owners, and against the interests of the people. This is immoral.
So basically you will pay people to make physical goods, but not any goods that can be stored digitally.
I never said I will not pay for digitally stored goods. In fact, even a cursory reading of my post should make clear that I fully *support* the idea of paying for creative works.
Are computer programmers so beneath carpenters in your estimation for a reason?
Ok, I see your problem. You are an "all-or-nothing" type who can't see shades of grey. Because I said that there are things I value, but will never buy, you think I will never buy *anything* I value (in the context of digital media). You think that because I said copyright violates reality, that I believe I'm entitled to own every digital item I desire. You think that because I treat a computer program different from a wooden deck, that I despise programmers, but value carpenters.
Your assumptions are false. I suggest you work on those if you want your conclusions to match reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You have, through the course if this discussion, begged several questions. Your assumptions have been:
1. That words and phrases can have only one meaning.
2. That the first meaning wins.
3. That the most official/authoritative meaning wins.
4. If any two meanings are contradictory or confusing, then one of them is no longer valid (the way you choose is somewhere in items 1, 2 and 3 above).
Of course, I know that you probably don't really believe any of those, but you have used them to further your position.
You've also used ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that stand out.
The *fact* is that words and phrases can have multiple meanings. The *fact* is that those multiple meanings can be contradictory. The *fact* is that meanings from "official, authoritative" sources can co-exist with meanings from more vulgar sources. The *fact* is that different meanings can cause confusion. The *fact* is there is no official arbiter who can enforce any one meaning universally, or authoritatively banish a meaning.
None of these facts, it seems to me, can be reasonably disputed. Not liking how things are does not negate reality.
You are right when you say "to beg the question" means "to assume what needs proving" (or some variation thereof), you are wrong when you state that that is the only valid or correct meaning.
And here's the kicker. Let's say you manage, through a rigorous campaign, end the common usage and convince everyone to use the "superior" definition (hey, I'll donate to that cause), you will still not have fully extinguished that meaning from validity. You'll have removed it from common usage, but the phrase is still valid so long as any texts that use it exist, or so long as anyone remembers it exists, etc. It does, however, become archaic.
I agree completely that the more formal definition is superior, and I commiserate in its degradation in common usage. But I accept that it has been degraded, and accept that, although I don't like it, the common usage has become a valid usage. There is no law in nature or language that requires I like how things are, nor is there any restriction in language that makes confusing or contradictory definitions impossible. I'm not arguing against your attempt to educate people about the "superior" meaning, I'm only arguing against the notion that people are wrong. They aren't wrong. The very fact that people can use it to successfully communicate is what makes it right. The first few people to get it wrong really did get it wrong, but once it becomes common, it's game over. That doesn't make the original meaning wrong, either. Both are right. One is more nuanced and meaningful, the other is more common. They both address a similar issue, and have somewhat incompatible meanings. Languages grow and change, and not always for the better. Them's the breaks. You can't change that.
Nope, it's not a matter of opinion at all. If people use a phrase, consistently, in a certain way, the phrase means what the usage implies, no matter what you believe.
"Beg the question" has a formal meaning. I'm not "artificially" dividing the language into formal and informal, I'm describing a natural separation. "Formal" is what snobbish academics will tell you your words mean, informal is your words meaning whatever works in common prose.
There is no single authority on the English language. Trying to pretend that there is a One True Language is to deny reality.
"To beg the question" became a phrase when a bunch of philosophers decided to translate a latin phrase into English. Those philosophers have no special authority over the English language. They cannot arbitrarily tell anyone else what a phrase actually means. They can merely use a word or phrase in a certain way, and if it catches on, it becomes recognized as "valid".
Likewise, when a word or phrase is used in a new way (and by 'new', this almost certainly always means 'incorrect'), if it becomes common enough, it becomes valid. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
In common parlance, "begs the question" means something, and you have absolutely no authority to tell people they are wrong. In fact, they are very much right, because the phrase has become understood to mean what they mean it to mean, and not what you believe it should mean.
Of course, the original meaning of the phrase still exists, and philosophers and logicians still benefit from it and recognize it, but it's become a specialized niche meaning. That's reality. I, like you, prefer that meaning, but I, unlike you, am willing to accept reality as it is, and not pretend it is what I think it should be.
Now, I tried to point out this fact of reality to you, and since it truly does cause confusion and frustration, especially from the old guard, I offered some advice on how to look at it so maybe you'll be able to not feel it's such an abomination, but a normal function of the language, but you decided to just shrug it all off.
You are correct to say it's problematic, but you are wrong to say it's foolish for people to accept follow-on meanings. If that were the case, we'd be speaking in ye olde English.
While I can't offer any solution to the problem (it's a problem that's inherent in any open language system), I can offer some advice with how to look at it.
First off, there's formal and informal. A lot of words and phrases are acceptable on an informal level, which are absolutely wrong in a formal level. "Irregardless", "I could care less", "ain't", not using "whom", and of course, slang in general, are all informal and correct usage, but are not formal English (although some are being accepted more and more as formal English). The same goes for grammar in general.
Second, there are different contexts. In specialized fields, words and phrases take on specific meanings which aren't there in the general (even formal) usage.
Lastly, there are different senses for words and phrases (this doesn't really apply here so I'll leave it at that, just trying to be thorough with the list).
Formally, "beg the question" means something different (although somewhat similar) to the informal meaning. In specialized fields (primarily, logic and philosophy), they use the formal meaning, most everyone else uses the informal meaning. Which came first is irrelevant when it comes to the current state of affairs. Currently, the informal usage is well-established, and nothing you do will change that. It's a fact of life you'll just have to deal with.
That doesn't mean there's nothing you can do. You can do as you're doing now, which is to try to educate as many people as possible (without coming across as a pedant or a snob, otherwise you'll be working against your goals) to the formal (and, in my opinion, more useful) meaning.
And you're wrong when you say that the phrase has no equivalents. What's wrong with saying, "you are assuming what you are trying to prove", or "you are assuming something that first needs to be proved"? They're not as short, but they work, and pretty much everyone will understand what you mean.
Imagine, those silly consumers thinking it'd be worthwhile to know if things often used on or near one's body have exploded in real-world usage! Fortunately, the news is that it happened once, not that it's happening a lot.
Besides, even the phenomenon itself is news to most people (they have no understanding of the chemical properties of lithium). As an EE (or expert in any field), you should be used to hearing things on the news you already knew.
All too true.
Like hell it's a common occurrence. It's very, very, rare for a notebook computer to burst into flames and explode. If it was common, you'd have heard about it on the news how it happened at a local Starbucks, college, or airline flight, fairly often. You'd hear stories of IT workers saying, "avoid this notebook because it's very common for it to bursts into flames and explodes".
No, it's not common at all.
Also, nice try attempting to pretend like this was due to user error. Unlike the iBook, the Dell was not placed on a carpet. It was on a table. Granted, there's a tablecloth, but that's very much unlike a carpet. Did you happen to notice all the other notebooks on the very same tablecloths?
To recap, it's very rare, it has happened to an iBook G4, although under more severe conditions, and the resulting fire was significantly less extreme.
That's rather disappointing. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of with your, "I attack you, then define any defense by you a win for me." nonsense. Oh well, it happens.
I'm done with you. Good day.
Almost certainly outraged. How do you think a fully competent woman would feel knowing she didn't get the job just because an incompetent man got the job over her just because he's a man?
The point here, is, that the question is raised as to whether the latter is a significant problem. Both assuredly exist. You raise the question if the former is a significant problem. I don't believe it is, but if it is I agree fully that something must be done about it.
It doesn't have to happen everywhere to be a problem, it just has to happen enough. There's always going to be some imbalances and injustices no matter what you do, but at some point the signal becomes stronger than the noise. Given the extreme disparity between men and women in IT/programming/etc, it's certainly warranted to look into it, no?
Your High School YTE highlights this. If girls outnumber boys in it, what happens between there and their entry into the workforce? It raises another possibility: perhaps the disparity we are seeing today is a result of sexism of the past (60s, 70s, 80s), and as sexism is further decreasing throughout the 90s and 00s, we'll see a marked improvement throughout the 10s and 20s? I really do not know, but it's definitely worth looking into.
The problem with fallacies is that they refer to formal logic. I am not attempting to prove that women are significantly suppressed in the IT field. What I am attempting to do is present it as a legitimate question, and one that should be addressed.
By your reasoning, anything that isn't known for certain must be treated as a logical fallacy and therefore not studied. How many times a day are you required to act without absolute assuredness of the answer? Do you defer on the basis of "logical fallacy"? Do you decide not to bring in an exterminator to look at your house if you suspect, but do not absolutely know, that you have a termite problem? Do you hold off on taking your car to the mechanic until you are absolutely certain about what is wrong with it? Would you not take your child to the hospital until it's absolutely clear that that rash really is serious?
An assertion for which you have no backing. Ie. a fallacious argument (by your standards). The fact is that neither of us can prove our opinion. The difference is that my opinion is supported (but not proven) by history and reasonable expectations based on how some people are still known, for certain, to act today. It does not prove my assertion, but it does make it more than reasonable to study.
You have two identical groups, consisting of people with identical levels of aptitude and interest. Which group is going to be more successful?:
- The group that has the support and encouragement of others.
- The group that is persistently, even if mildly, discouraged by others.
How many people eventually give up? For how many of those is giving up not an act of will, but a subconscious, automatic, emotional response to avoid negative stimuli?Again, I am not attempting to prove that this is the case here. It is, however, well known and understood that these things happen, and all of the hallmarks exist in this situation, warranting study into the question, and if necessary, corrective action be taken.
I don't normally reply to people who just post to call me a troll, but since you didn't post AC, I will in this case.
Do you care to back up those accusations? What makes you think I'm trolling? My posts are all my honest viewpoint, not intended simply to get people to waste their time or to upset them. I also believe my posts put forth a valid point-of-view, or expose flaws in what others are saying.
As for the need for the last word, that's equally baffling. While I have in the past (and almost certainly will in the future) engaged in threads which have gone on far longer than they probably should have, I don't see how this is even remotely the case on this thread. I have replied to almost all of those who've responded to me (which is a rarity for me to do, as it takes a lot of time and is often pointless). This time I both had the time and felt it was warranted. I don't see, though, how it's wrong to reply to someone in a conversation. (given your username, it seems strange to me you'd think otherwise)
In any case, my motives are not those that you are ascribing to me.
Don't try to pretend that your statement and the AC's statement are equal. In your statement, one can have a rational debate. The AC's statement was demonstrably false, and attempt to circumvent any further discussion.
Some philosophies are ignorant. But I wasn't calling his philosophy ignorant in that quote, I was calling his putting forth, as absolute fact, something that is so easily disproved, as ignorant. But if it makes you feel better, I do believe the philosophy I assume he holds to be ignorant--the reason being that I believe his philosophy is predicated on ignorance, ie. to not seek actual answers to serious questions, but to latch onto the simplest, least demanding answer, without regards to whether it matches with reality. In other words, a predominantly dogmatic philosophy.
Nice try. My philosophy is in no way based on Communism, nor do I have any great level of sympathy for Communism except for the fact that I can understand why people find it appealing. The problem with Communism is exactly the same as lies with Egoism or pure Capitalism--specifically that it takes an ideal and promotes it far beyond any semblance of reality or reason.
This raises two issues. The first is how much of the differences is nature, how much is nurture. The second is, regardless of the inherent differences, as far as society is concerned, is one sex better off than the other? In all such cases, I advocate learning more in an attempt to understand and honor our differences, as well as attempt to correct any injustices. You seem to think I only want to make everyone equal--I can understand the knee-jerk reaction which would lead to such a conclusion, but in my case it's an absolutely false accusation. I get in arguments with men who think the status quo is A-OK, and I get in argument with women when I state that the average man is stronger than the average women, which brings us from the general, to the specific...
In general, your point that women may naturally be inclined towards some topics more than others. While I suspect that is true to some extent, I also suspect that the level of disparity between the sexes in that regard is not solely due to biological, physiological differences or inherent psychological differences. If it is, then the only general question regarding the sexes is, if one sex is less well-off than the other, what can or should be done about it?
But on to the specifics. Regardless of any overall trends between the genders, it's undeniable that there will always be women who are extremely interested in the same sorts of things men are, and vice-versa. What about them? How many women are turned away from technology education and careers who actually want to enter the field? Even if the natural balance in the field would be (just picking numbers weighted against what I expect to be accurate) 80-20, does reality match nature? Almost assuredly not. Therefore it's only rational that something be done about it. I don't simply mean quotas and equal-opportunity lawsuits, but something that actually addresses the problem at it's core, and leads to actual results.
Show me such a willful act of circumvention of logic and rationality on my part as that of the AC's, and I'l
Case in point. She abused the system (assuming your assessment of her skills and qualifications is accurate). The company should not have capitulated, they should have looked into the matter, and made a rational decision. I know this doesn't always happen, but addressing the problems with a system is how you make things better, not scrapping the whole thing because it didn't work here or there.
You are lying, and you know it. If she was "wrongfully" promoted, that's not fair at all.
Yes, I can. But that does not excuse the ignorant behavior shown by the AC I replied to.
Every system that is meant to truly help people can be, has been, and will always be, abused. That requires us to take a look at the system. Can the abuse be mitigated? Can the system be altered to eliminate the abuse, while still providing the benefits for which it exists? Do the abuses outweigh any benefit whatsoever?
In the case of this specific system, to me it's acceptable that some cases like you point out occur, so long as the overall equality of the system benefits (and by "overall equality", I mean with regards to both sexes, not just that more women get better positions). This is not unlike the laws which allow people clearly guilty of a crime (even murder) go free if the state fails to follow certain rules. The reason for that is not because anyone wants murderers to go free, but because these rules help to ensure that other, more widespread, injustices do not occur.
If there are girls and young women who are turned away unfairly from embarking on technology education and careers, and if there are women who are discriminated against in the workplace, would you deny them justice and equality just because your co-worker gamed the system?
Great work there, Sherlock, that is exactly my argument. Stating my thesis back at me is a strange argument tactic, as I've made no attempt to hide it.
If we did as you suggest, societal progress would be severely retarded. Yes, my statements bring up the question of possible injustice. But these aren't just vacuous words, they are words based on observation. What needs to be done is to study the situation. Is it fair? Then bravo, we are doing good, case closed. Is it unfair? Then let's do something about it. But to do nothing whatsoever, as you suggest, ensures that injustices will not only happen, but flourish. Perhaps not in this case (although it's my opinion that it is happening in this case), but in some other similar case where you would have us apply your "wait and see, but do nothing that would cause me to actually see" approach.
What "terms" have I laid out? Terms that if something is unknown, and potentially dangerous, and is reasonably likely to occur, that we ought to look into it? Sheesh, silly me and my logical "terms".
Ignoring the fact that your argument is just as anecdotal as mine, which severely undermines of all your chiding above...
The point of my post was to point out the obvious illogic in the AC's post, and call into question what makes someone believe so fervently in something so easily disproved. I freely admit that I do not know, as a matter of incontrovertible fact, that the positions women hold in the various IT and computer technology fields is fair, nor do I know if girls and young women have fair and equitable opportunities as they are growing up. I do know that these sorts of things are common, and I have personally seem more discrimination against women than against men in both school and the workplace. Enough, in fact, for me to support looking into the matter, and if something is wrong, to support attempts to fix it.
Since you seem to disagree with my post so strongly, does that mean you believe that attempts at fixing perceived social inequalities can only promote mediocrity? Because that was the primary issue I was addressing.
In other words, you are saying people are fully rational, without an ounce of subjectivity.
How many parents, do you suppose, buy dolls for their little girls, and electronic toys for their little boys? How many teachers recognize technological curiosity in boys and nurture it, while seen the same tendencies in girls as unrealistic or as quaint little phases? How many bosses and managers see the dorky-looking man as a competent engineer, but the dorky-looking woman as kinda ugly and maybe they'd rather not work with her?
Are these people all irrational and/or outright ignorant morons? Absolutely. Does that mean they therefore don't exist, and thus their negative influences need not be counteracted? Of course not!
I refer you back to my original set of questions for you; the ones questioning your character flaws and motivations for such irrationality.
How many young girls never get into computers, because parents and teachers never even think that a girl might be interested in programming? How much interest does a boy have to show in computing to get offered by an adult to teach him more about computers? How many girls have shown even more interest, only to be turned away? How many girls don't even let their own interests show for fear of just being scoffed at by adults ("oh, that silly girl thinks she's going to become a computer scientist!"), or by friends, ("eww, why do you want to use a computer? you don't want to be a dork, do you?").
You also act like somehow children have a fully-developed sense of self and ego, and full command over their lives--as though it's their fault for not achieving their fullest potential, even when the odds are stacked against them. How many young adult women in high school and college never enter into technology courses at all, because that spark that once flickered in their youth was doused instead of nurtured?
But, once again, you show your willful ignorance, and promote a notion that is easily shown as irrational. For what you suggest to be true, you'd have to take as given that the social structures which affect us cannot work against us, cannot hinder our growth, and cannot affect different groups and classes in society differently.
Answer my question, why do you feel compelled to promote something so horrendously irrational, and worse, something that actively works against achieving any real progress in society? Why is it that you don't put any effort into making sure your notions fit with reality? What, exactly, is your defect?
My guess is that you tend to latch onto the first idea that fits a problem requiring the least amount of change on your part. Women are underrepresented in the technology fields? "They're just too stupid^W^W not technologically inclined." Girls aren't given the same quality of opportunities as boys? "They just need to take the initiative."
Do you notice how your responses assume, without evidence and therefore without logic or reason, that there is nothing unjust with the status quo? What are the odds, do you suppose, that somehow the current state of affairs happens to be exactly ideal? Do you notice how, if things aren't fair (a possibility you must grant, if you are at all honest about the extent to which you can rationally judge the situation), that you are blaming the victim? How can you stand to be so intellectually dishonest and socially destructive?
Do you truly think that attempts at gender equality can only accomplish the promotion of mediocrity (I think you meant mediocrity, not mediocracy, although in either case my response is the same), and nothing else whatsoever?
Are you certain that:
- Currently, women's positions in the field accurately matches their skills and qualifications?
- Girls and young women are given adequate education, motivation, and acceptance when it comes to even considering entering the field?
Given that you don't know, for a fact, that the answer to both of those questions is 'yes', then how can you possibly know that addressing those issues cannot help, but can only promote mediocrity?Now, be honest. You don't actually know the answer to those two questions. You know there are other possible outcomes besides the promotion of mediocrity (or mediocracy). So why--truly, honestly, why--did you make the statement above? What beliefs, assumptions, prejudices or predilections do you have which lead to such a circumvention of logic and rationality?
It's worse than that, though. He's fighting against his own best interest. If he wants Apple to re-open the kernel, there's no better way to do so than to point out that there are *actual* people who *actually* want to recompile the kernel. If no one is *actually* complaining about something they *actually* want to do, that removes a lot of motivation for Apple to give them that option.
It's really funny, then, that you quote him saying exactly that:
...
Nice try. Claiming it's not "sensationalism" is not the same as saying it's not "yellow journalism" (what the OP actually said). But even so, you don't call, "Yet no story is more timely, or more broadly relevant, than this one." sensationalism? Timely? Not really, but even that sensationalistic claim pales in comparison to "more broadly relevant". *Broadly*? To who? There are tens of millions of Mac users. You'd have to take an extremely distorted point of view to see the extremely small fraction of those users who have any desire to recompile the kernel as broad, let alone to consider the subject of the article as the most broadly relevent story of all.
I think he wants both. But that's irrelevant to the topic of the quality of his journalism.
Are you suggesting that all it takes is a suit and a shave to earn a PM's respect?
This is entirely irrelevant. He's not there to impress the PM with his looks, he was there to impress him with his ideas. If the PM had accepted his request (via letter, so personal appearance won't have played into it), he would not have shunned him just because of his beard and lack of suit. He might think poorly of RMS's personal appearance, but he's not going to dismiss RMS out-of-hand because of it. You don't (generally) get to such high office by ignoring powerful ideas merely because the packaging is grungy.
You haven't demonstrated it needs to be given. Did you mean to imply that had RMS shaved and wore a suit, the PM would have met with him?
You are acting like RMS is embarking on a political career. He is not. As I said before, if he was looking to break into a new field with no prior accomplishments (as an actual politician, he is a neophyte), then your advice should be well-received. But he's not. He's basically an emissary from the Free Software movement. You don't demand emissaries change their appearance to suit your tastes, you accept them as they are, party out of respect for the other group, and partly to get to know more *about* that group.
His goals are not what you seem to think they are. As I said, I can somewhat understand the suggestion at getting a suit, but do you seriously think he should shave of years worth of beard for one freaking meeting?! You might not think beards are all that great, but obviously RMS does.
Why not? On what grounds do you dismiss them?
We tend to be more callous towards the plight of men than women, so the distinction serves the purpose of the article, which is to report on working conditions that are almost certainly not what the average westerner would be comfortable being a party to.
Apple is known for being a progressive company and promotes both a philosophy and a lifestyle that's appealing to progressive/liberal people. In this way, Apple is a lot like Starbucks and Nike. You may not see the similarities, but they are certainly there.
I'm fairly certain that the number of people who feel that way is extremely small. Most people who are anti-this-corporation-or-another aren't anti-success or anti-business, they just judge businesses by how they affect the world, and not simply on how much money they make.
The point here is that you and I can't do much about what China does, but we can have some impact on what Apple (and Nike, etc) do.
There's something to be said about the notion that if Apple were to simply pull out of China, the people who are borderline slaves will be even worse off, but *don't* pretend that that makes it OK. I really don't know the answer to this sort of problem, but I'd definitely be happier to know that Apple puts an effort to provide better working conditions than are the norm for the area (better pay, less hours, better benefits, those sorts of things), even if that means higher prices for me. On the other hand, unless Dell, HP, etc, do the same, that will put Apple at a distinct disadvantage.
BTW, this is *exactly* the sort of reason government standards (the sort of thing conservates seem to really hate) are important and beneficial. There are situations which can be better if all parties agree, but if any one party tries to make change for the better alone or in limited numbers, they are punished, which keeps the system in a sub-optimal equilibrium. See "the prisoner's dilemma", or study John Nash's Nobel Prize winning work for more insight on the topic.
I can almost understand the advice to dress formally--while shallow and superficial, it's not a bad idea--but the emphasis on shaving is really appalling on your part.
It gets even worse:
This is absolutely amazing. Do you not realize that RMS:
1. *Has* more respect than you could ever hope to have.
2. Is internationally famous for his actions which he, himself, describes as respecting his fellow man.
3. Has devoted so much of his life to this selfless cause that it's the height of irony to suggest he hasn't actually *earned* the respect he has gained.
What you've given is advice for some young lad/lass who's just getting started on a career, and has no prior accomplishments or distinguishing attributes. In that case, by all means, your advice is excellent. But for someone who has such a distinguished and accomplished life has RMS has, your advice is really not helpful whatsoever.
Yes. It was exactly my point.
It seems that one of two things must be true here. Either we agree, in which case your response to the OP doesn't logically follow, or you misunderstood my point.
The OP was saying that seeking nothing but money is bad. You responded by saying that money is important. The OP wasn't saying that money isn't important, he was decrying the sole pursuit of money.
Every game I've seen that sits on DirectX does so through an abstraction layer.
I'm not experienced in this area, although I must wonder about your sample size. How many games have you seen to know if this is common or not?
And even assuming almost every game sits entirely on an abstraction layer above DirectX, the end result is that they are still tied to Windows, and any other API set with which that abstraction layer can interface. And more specifically, these games do not find themselves easily ported to OS X. I realize that there is more to it than just changing the checkbox from "Windows" to "OS X" in the compiler, but companies like Id and Blizzard have had little difficulty in the past releasing games for both Mac and Windows, while other companies seem to have more of a difficulty with it, and some don't do it at all, even though the demand for their game is really quite high (Half-Life and HL2, for example, would sell quite well for OS X).
So, even if the non-ported games are directly written to DirectX, or interface through an abstraction layer, the end result is the same, and so it doesn't seem like that abstraction layer is helping much. So maybe I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that writing a game for cross-platform APIs like OpenGL, OpenAL and SDL (for example) would not make it easier to port a game to OS X than the way games are currently being written? Because not only does that seem counterintuitive, just looking at how things seem to work out implies that that's not true as well.
Addressing your example, Mac OS X is a better OS than Windows. In fact, it's rather silly of you to contend that Mac OS X is superior to Windows, yet that capitalism has decided Windows is the best OS. Which is it? Actually, no, it's not that you're being silly. You're doing something much worse. You are taking a theory about capitalism, and treating the theory as a law which reality *must* obey. If your theory about capitalism is true, then *you must know beyond a shadow of a doubt* that Windows is superior to OS X, and that you are being extremely irrational in choosing Macs over Windows PCs.
Which is it? Is your theory about capitalism true? Or is reality true, and your theory needs adjusting?
Very few people actually choose Windows because it's the best OS, they choose it for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality of the OS. They choose it:
Absolutely *none* of those reasons have anything to do with being the best, even though they are all valid reasons for choosing Windows.
No, the parent that I responded to said that there was no performance different between Mac and Windows--THAT'S what I was responding to.
It doesn't seem to me that he was saying they are equal in performance, but that modern Macs are fully capable of running any modern game (technologically speaking, obviously they don't all run natively under OS X).
But--it's still pretty far behind windows (you seem to think the difference is small--I don't think it is. WoW is almost more playable at times on my 2Ghz athlon-xp with geforce3 than my 1.5 year old Aluminum powerbook). That was my only point.
If you limit the discussion to PowerPC Macs, then I'd agree that anything less than a G5 is going to underperform on any modern game, but the Intel Macs are really quite fast, and any speed difference between OS X and Windows is pretty small.
I'm not sure what your last point is, but I do sometimes play WoW and other games on my much older PC.
I was mostly responding the your assertion that gaming on OS X is not ideal. My point being that even if it's not ideal: a. the difference isn't that big and b. even if that performance gap is never bridged, gaming on OS X is legitimate and Apple should promote it more (IOW, even if a top-of-the-line Windows PC gets 10 more fps on Oblivion than a top-of-the-line Mac, that doesn't mean Mac users won't want to play it. After all, I'd wager most PCs happily running Oblivion today get fewer fps than Oblivion would on an Intel iMac).
You might not disagree with that point much, I'm not sure, but that isn't clear, so I put it out there.
OP: It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money.
You: The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
Spot the difference.
No one is saying game companies shouldn't worry about making money, but that they should, first and foremost, care about making great games. Money just happens to be the second-most critical requirement for making great games (the first is talent).
Think about it personally. Do you only care about making money? No. Do you care about making money? Yes. Big difference.
To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc.
Except for those that go with DirectX, which do, sadly, exist.
Do you buy things you can't afford?
C'mon, this is America. Of *course* we do. But no one is asking came companies to buy (develop) a game they can't afford. Instead, we just want them to make the best games that they can afford, and not simply make the games that will make them the most money regardless of quality.
Of course, you might ask, "why should a company not seek the most money possible?" That's a shallow question (not aimed at you, unless it's a question you'd ask). Companies are made of people, and people will often prefer to be involved with a quality project. Companies exist solely to serve people, and people desire quality products. It's really up to the people in the corporation to choose the balance between quality and profit, although it's my opinion that profit is chosen in a proportion greater than the people involved would prefer, which brings us full circle to the OP's lament.
FWIW, OSX is still not an ideal gaming platform.
Uh, yeah, that's sort of the point of THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. Apple needs to make more efforts to promote OS X as a gaming platform. Duh.
You mention OpenGL--take a look at the world of warcraft Mac technical support forum, or various benchmarks sets. On identical hardware, OSX WoW performance lags very far behind windows.
Irrelevant to the topic the poster mentioned, which is that OpenGL is cross-platform and DirectX isn't. A game that's 10%-20% slower than the Windows counterpart is infinitely superior to a game that isn't available because it uses DirectX.
However, to the general topic at hand, Apple needs to improve the gaming performance of OS X (which they actually do--reading the Blizzard forums like you suggest, you'll notice performance increasing patches often depend on OS X updates).
Lastly, even given game performance is less (by a small amount unless you're the overclocking-for-an-extra-7-fps type), Apple needs to promote gaming on OS X, even if they do nothing about improving performance, because people will still want to play games on their Macs. After all, do you not play a game just because *your* PC is 10% slower than the ideal-turn-the-options-to-11 PC?
yet somehow you believe you are entitled to own them.
Not in the slightest. I believe no one can own an idea short of keeping it to themselves. Once they do, *reality* dictates they no longer own the copies in other people's minds or contained on other people's possessions. That fact of reality works against the need of humans to make money, and the desire of humans to create and consume art. Because reality and our desires are in contradiction, it's rational to create laws which violate reality and grant logical ownership to the content creators. Because that violates reality, it needs to be limited, both in scope and over time.
This is a case of "you can't eat your cake and have it, too", therefore a balance needs to be maintained. Right now the balance is exceedingly weighted in favor of IP owners, and against the interests of the people. This is immoral.
So basically you will pay people to make physical goods, but not any goods that can be stored digitally.
I never said I will not pay for digitally stored goods. In fact, even a cursory reading of my post should make clear that I fully *support* the idea of paying for creative works.
Are computer programmers so beneath carpenters in your estimation for a reason?
Ok, I see your problem. You are an "all-or-nothing" type who can't see shades of grey. Because I said that there are things I value, but will never buy, you think I will never buy *anything* I value (in the context of digital media). You think that because I said copyright violates reality, that I believe I'm entitled to own every digital item I desire. You think that because I treat a computer program different from a wooden deck, that I despise programmers, but value carpenters.
Your assumptions are false. I suggest you work on those if you want your conclusions to match reality.