It's no wonder only the asian manufacturers are keeping up (or at least trying to) with Apple on all fronts at once. Apparently to get good tablet screens (or any other mobile parts), you need to be Apple, or willing to finance building the extra factory because Apple has it's parts orders locked down for years ahead.
But what does Carly Fiorina have to do with how Palm failed? Directly I mean. It seems like Apotheker was the primary incompetence vendor meeting the needs of Palm and HP's consumer facing divisions.
A lot of other companies and services that Americans take for granted are not accessible outside a small number of industrialized countries. Even Apple's media stores are very different creatures outside the US. Their much lauded " no DRM for music" stance becomes laughable when they still have DRMed music in other countries stores. The huge selection of movies and tv shows becomes significantly emptier in other countries. Amazon is another company with highly US-centric web services, outside of the US, only Kindle books are reliably purchasable, their movies and music much less so.
While a great deal of effort and attention is payed by these companies to the US market (and rightly so, I don't dispute that it's one of the largest consumer markets and certainly the wealthiest), Android's success outside the US seems more to do with how Samsung, HTC and other asian players have people and products on the ground in other markets that those other companies (Google, Apple, etc) don't have.
Like you said, it's inexperience dealing with women. I don't know why you said that and then said it's sexism.
Because that's what a lot of sexism (and racism) IS! It's an inexperienced privileged person who doesn't realize they're wielding their unfair advantages against someone else. Things have progressed far from burning crosses on black people's lawns or putting women in prison if they want to vote. Things are more subtle now, like peer reviewers more likely to look at a paper favourably if the lead author's name is a typically male one. Of course the entire review team will have after-the-fact justifications and rationalizations, but a double blind test is what it is.
Like you said, it's inexperience dealing with women. I don't know why you said that and then said it's sexism.
No. YOU are blaming the victim, because you refuse to see that the women are STILL being affected by this senseless stone age bullshit. How is women speaking out about sexism in the workplaces somehow blaming the victim? How is it that a man can be a victim of being accused of sexism, yet somehow a woman is always at fault when sexist things happened to her
Really, why shouldn't they be more tolerant of someone who is inexperienced? How else is one supposed to become experienced, especially if for whatever reason they missed that development during their youth?
Why should a poor person be tolerant of a rich person thinking they deserve more rights than them? Why should a black person be tolerant of someone thinking that they are lesser because their skin is darker? Just because these "inexperienced" men don't know how to interact with women doesn't mean they are in the right. It just means society thinks it's alright to condition boys and young men to be hostile to women, and men who (for whatever reason) don't experience meaningful female companionship/relationships keep their infantile conditioning into adulthood.
The fact that you ask for women to cater to men is a classic case of "privilege". You're so used to males having all the power and influence, you want women to change their behaviour to better cater to you.
See, here you admit women can dress slutty or frumpy, but before you said "A woman gets harassed and you think SHE STARTED IT by being ATTRACTIVE?" as if to imply that she can't possibly start it. But getting dressed in the morning is most definitely starting something, one way or the other.
I was using an easily understood word. It doesn't mean I agree with the social conditions and attitudes that feed into it's meaning. An anti-racism advocate can say "nigger" when they're talking about some issue or other, that doesn't mean that suddenly they want to go putting strange fruit on the southern trees.
Sea urchins taste awesome you insenstive clod! Rich, salty and slightly disturbing, they go well with a slice or lemon and chillies (almost everything that comes out of the sea goes well with those things though). Don't eat them while you're drinking though, the slightly unsettling texture gets plenty unsettling when drunk and slightly nauseous.
Thanks for the information. If I had a sockpuppet account I'd mod this up! Maybe the use of java as the language of instruction in so many lower tier universities pumped out compsci grads that were sub-par programmers who coded primarily in java? That's another idea I've heard floating around, maybe you could enlighten me on that? In my experience I have just seen so few good projects coded substantially in java.
American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.
"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
I don't know, nor care about how knowledgeable you are about your own personal sky fairy, but generally, atheists have followed the narrative of being raised in a religion and then giving it up. Most religious people belong to their religions by an accident of birth (or politics in some cases), and there was no great reflection of the whys and wherefores of their religion. Because you believe in something through sheer cultural inertia does not make you more knowledgeable, in fact the opposite.
Because the Fox article seems to be the most retarded one of the bunch. Most other news sites mention the "gamer code of lua" or was that "LUA" in passing. The Fix article makes it one of the main points. This is what happens when they get too used to publishing opinions.
I've never had a problem so far as long as I've only used the proper APIs and not implementation-specific class.
I'm curious, did your apps have a native-looking GUI (like most consumer apps), and was performance important (like most games)? You can have any type of programming language that can output executables (or run scripts) on any supported platform as long as you stay away from "implementation-specific classes". I'm not saying that WORA with Java is impossible or something, just that programmers were promised a panacea that would make cross platform applications a commonplace feature. History shows that it's harder than just writing something for a multi-platform VM.
It's possible that the next time something like Java is being considered as an open-source target that the owners will carefully plan and consider how they can make it available without the same thing happening. But it's far, far more likely that they just won't bother at all.
Java failed in it's promise of Write Once, Run Anywhere a long time before Dalvik came to the scene. It's more like Google saw how fucked up Java was (with SE, ME and EE), and decided to do their own version , you know, like how Microsoft has.Net.
From the libertarian viewpoint, these groups are fairly easy to defeat. Take away their assets and they're no longer a self respecting corporation. These businesses have hard assets that are hard to hide or move. They cause this sort of trouble, then break or take their assets (libertarians allow for such force in response to coercion).
This is assuming the local population have the weapons, skill, numbers and will to oppose and win over a powerful corporation. My opinion is that advances in weapons technology and tactics makes this a very unlikely thing. It's been exactly 200 years after 1812, and if rural farmers with consumer grade firearms tried to do the same to a private army fielded by a corporation today, things would turn out gruesomely different. Unmanned drones. Smart bombs and mines. Satellite surveillance. Sure we like to watch the Rebels defeat the Empire, but in real life, this is unlikely.
I think a greater weakness of the libertarian viewpoint is simply that people historically choose safety over freedom. One needs social infrastructure that supports the libertarian strategy, eg, choosing to take on a tyrant, oppressive business, or crime lord and doing so in an organized way. This infrastructure simply doesn't exist in most of the world.
Exactly, most people are cowards (if they aren't pushed too much). Historically, the best way to assure freedoms for the maximum amount of people have been powerful governments with democratically elected representation, because it's easier to fight with words than bullets. The great danger of revolutions is now becoming apparent in places like Egypt (France is a good historical example). With Islamists gaining power in Egypt, it is becoming apparent that what the people most want is a government as reductively religious as most of the region.
What I mean in those last sentences is that once the chaos from the revolution dies down and the dust settles, there might be groups in power that were worse than what was deposed. There are amoral opportunists waiting for a revolution just like there are virtuous libertarians.
You need to read up on old concepts like "company towns" and "indentured labour". I know unions are all unfashionable now, but during the industrial revolution, their formation lead to the improvement of quality of life for workers everywhere, rather than just those who "owned the means of production", as they say. What Libertarians don't realize (because it has become uncommon in their lifetimes) is that when a corporation has enough power to effectively BE the government in a local area, things can only get worse. The "invisible hand" that they cherish so much only works in certain market conditions. Conditions that any self respecting corporation will seek to prevent as soon as they gain enough power.
1. Strawman argument. ad hominem. I never said I or anyone see women as orifices. This accusation is just a stupid shaming tactic. There's a BIG difference between intrinsic attractiveness triggering occasional unwanted attention, and blatantly shining it on to manipulate, and/or prop up petty narcissism, then complaining about unwanted attention. My language made it obvious I'm talking about the latter, which makes up the majority of anecdotal examples I've seen. In fact, this kind of thing is dramatized in the media quite a bit as 'girl power' moments, complete with the woman gloating about how she managed to extract some favor from a guy.
What is it? A strawman or an ad hominem? I suggest you ask a close female friend/relative to take you to common clothing outlets that sell women's clothes. A trend you might notice going from shelf to shelf is an overabundance of either thin/sheer, low-cut tops/knee high skirts. Most good clothes are also revealing clothes. It is assumed that a woman looking for clothes that don't accentuate her sexual characteristics is a fatty with low self esteem. This shows not only through attitudes, but also the distribution of quality and the "revealingness" of clothes.
Another thing you might want to have a deep conversation with this female about, is how society regulates what clothes they wear. They can't dress too slutty, or even the "feminist" guys feel entitled to pass comments, and other women start getting hostile. Yet if they dress too "frumpy", suddenly they're attacked by people who were perfectly civil to them when they were dressed with their "warpaint" on. Women are judged on their appearances in ways that men are not. A man can be brilliant, reliable, successful, and completely physically unattractive. Opinions about this man will range from his achievements to his net worth, etc. A woman can be brilliant, reliable, successful and completely physically unattractive. Opinions about her will always primarily focus on the fact that she's ugly.
no kidding.. it isn't the love boat. so put some clothes on, turn down the sensitivity knob and learn to put verbal rubbish in perspective, like males have had to long before there was a homo sapiens sapiens. We're all equals here, supposedly, so if they can do it, you can too. Anyway, feminists have no right to demand that men not dictate femininity while they work at redefining masculinity and male behavior to be what they want it to. It's blatantly hypocritical...and if you are the type who uses her assets to manipulate, then you do have yourself to blame for sure. You wanted the attention, now you got it.
The thing is that when a man is being insulted by other men, he (the individual) is being attacked. In many male-dominated workplaces, when the men insult a female that's new to the job, they don't attack her, they often aim their attacks at women in general. They don't have any experience with dealing with women other than in a sexual context (or imagined sexual context), and so their insults always carry the stench of sexism. That's how I'VE seen it play out a lot of times. Anecdote for anecdote.
It's true that there are a lot of crazy feminists out there (radfems and the like). But at it's heart, feminism, like anti-racism, is all about trying to foster equality in the world, and that should be considered a good thing, no matter how many retarded bandwagon jumpers give it a bad name. You have no idea just how much of femininity is controlled and defined by what men think. Try a little more empathy next time. Those co-workers you say are trying to entrap you with their feminine wiles (I'll just assume this is an accurate description of reality), are really sad twisted little girls who were told the sick message that their physical attractiveness was the sum of their entire worth. People are not raised in a vacuum, and the past leaves it's scars on the present.
If you've got a lot of guys harassing you, maybe your behavior is playing a role too. See this is another area that irks me: apparently men are the sole proprietors of sexual non-verbal cues and women are just helpless, molested bystanders. This just isn't true. Women started it when they set themselves up to look attractive in the first place (which 99% of women do, of course).
What the fuck dude. What. The. Fuck. Women are attractive because they are attractive. If you don't have the mental discipline to set aside sexual attraction and deal with a co-worker as a person and not a set of orifices, then it's YOU who's the problem. A woman gets harassed and you think SHE STARTED IT by being ATTRACTIVE? What is she supposed to walk around in a burqa? I for one, can enjoy the scenery without getting handsy or passing comments, and if I think something I might say or do is inappropriate, I suppose my "feminist training" kicks in, and I judge for myself whether it's appropriate or not
As a male, I can tell you this: when a woman is interested, it's very obvious. when a woman is not interested, but is flattered, she is obvious, even when she vehemently denies her interest. men can see that, so they pursue. they have their nature just as women have theirs. Since I don't know how you dress or any details of your situation, I can't comment further, but this is generally what I've seen go down
So what? It's supposed to be a workplace, not the Love Boat. Once again, if you can't reign in your mating impulses, it's not someone else's problem if they can conceal theirs better. Spend some time with females in a non-"I wanna fuck you" context. Read a few books about "the male gaze".
Children conform ALL THE TIME. Children look for scripts that other people (especially adults or older children) use and try to adapt them for themselves. How would little girls know that they're supposed to wear pink things and get married in a huge fairy tale ceremony if it wasn't shoved down their throats from the minute they appear to understand spoken words? It's in every cartoon they watch, every fairy tale they hear, and even in advertising aimed at them. Also for little boys, how are they supposed to know that they like rough play, taking things apart (only the geeky ones will try to put it back together) and almost anything to do with sports? Their parents, fellow children and the media, that's how.
Even the determined non-conformist who doesn't wear the clothes all the other high schoolers are wearing, doesn't want to go to prom because "it's like so fake!", blah blah blah . They're mostly using the same script, just as a negative rather than a positive. There are few truly original people in the world, the rest just adapt the scripts their culture give their demographic in a way that suits them.
Looking back on our childhoods, it SEEMS like we made every decision ourselves, and that our preferences were these deep innate drives that we followed, but the truth is that most of what we are today is through upbringing and experience. Genetics accounts for VERY little of the differences between the sexes.
Would you like to cite any concrete sources that show the author does 90% and that the author gets less of the profit than the publisher? No doubt the author does the most important work, but surely the polish a proper publishing team can bring to bear on a book can elevate it above most of the 99c self-published crap on the Kindle Store.
So all those islamic nuts going around splashing acid in the faces of women who weren't wearing a burqa were just interested in keeping them in optimum clothing for their environment?
“As to Mr. Ravi. Let me stay this to you in advance. Nothing I say is intended in any way to disparage you or to demean you. I don’t even know you Whatever I say is said for the purpose of there being a full record. I heard this jury say guilty 288 times. 24 questions, 12 jurors. That’s the multiplication. And I haven’t heard you apologize once.
And the letter you gave to the pre-sentence people, I’ll called unimpressive. I know in that letter you apologize to Tyler and his family, but you didn’t even mention M.B. and the seven cover-up charges. and here are some of the most salient ironies
The person who described your conduct best, [Tyler Clementi,] isn’t even here I know I redacted that comment from the jury, but I didn’t redact it from myself.
While your letter doesn’t even mention M.B., he wrote a letter trying to help you avoid deportaiton, which is the main reason when I sign my judgement there will be a notation that you not be deported. It’s understood of course that that’s not my final decision
In my opening statements, Ms. McClure described your conduct as mean-spirited, malicious, and criminal. Mr. Altman described it as juvenile and prankish. Now if anyone is wondering why two incredibly competent attorneys disagree, its for the simplest reason in the world: it depends on which side of the camera you’re on You can expunge this judgement, but you cannot expunge the conduct or the pain you caused.”
Invasion of privacy is not a crime? Wow, when it's a gay man at risk, instead of their browsing history, suddenly slashdotters don't give a shit about privacy... Makes me wonder...
It should be really called "liberty crimes" because the intended effect of most hate crimes is to curtail someone's freedom. "Oh, I can't vote in next month's elections or move into a white neighborhood, or the burning cross in front of my house will become a gibbet, like what happened to the family down the road" thinks a black man under the heel of the KKK in the 60's. Similarly, gay students at Rutgers watching the humiliation unfold online, or may be word-of-mouth, will think "Oh, I can't have sex in my dorm room, even if I ask my roommate to vacate for a while (a classic behaviour immortalized in many college movies), something like what happened to Tyler will happen to me". Do you see the chilling effect the crime has on others in the community?
You're forgetting about CSIRO and all the crazy anti-aussie nonsense going around the tech blogs and comment sections last month... How about a third category: "Companies (or other organizations) who actually do research, develop useful products, but are situated in a foreign country." The image they have seems to be determined by how jingoistic the US tech media can get away with in their editorials without being too obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no wonder only the asian manufacturers are keeping up (or at least trying to) with Apple on all fronts at once. Apparently to get good tablet screens (or any other mobile parts), you need to be Apple, or willing to finance building the extra factory because Apple has it's parts orders locked down for years ahead.
But what does Carly Fiorina have to do with how Palm failed? Directly I mean. It seems like Apotheker was the primary incompetence vendor meeting the needs of Palm and HP's consumer facing divisions.
A lot of other companies and services that Americans take for granted are not accessible outside a small number of industrialized countries. Even Apple's media stores are very different creatures outside the US. Their much lauded " no DRM for music" stance becomes laughable when they still have DRMed music in other countries stores. The huge selection of movies and tv shows becomes significantly emptier in other countries. Amazon is another company with highly US-centric web services, outside of the US, only Kindle books are reliably purchasable, their movies and music much less so. While a great deal of effort and attention is payed by these companies to the US market (and rightly so, I don't dispute that it's one of the largest consumer markets and certainly the wealthiest), Android's success outside the US seems more to do with how Samsung, HTC and other asian players have people and products on the ground in other markets that those other companies (Google, Apple, etc) don't have.
Like you said, it's inexperience dealing with women. I don't know why you said that and then said it's sexism.
Because that's what a lot of sexism (and racism) IS! It's an inexperienced privileged person who doesn't realize they're wielding their unfair advantages against someone else. Things have progressed far from burning crosses on black people's lawns or putting women in prison if they want to vote. Things are more subtle now, like peer reviewers more likely to look at a paper favourably if the lead author's name is a typically male one. Of course the entire review team will have after-the-fact justifications and rationalizations, but a double blind test is what it is.
Like you said, it's inexperience dealing with women. I don't know why you said that and then said it's sexism.
No. YOU are blaming the victim, because you refuse to see that the women are STILL being affected by this senseless stone age bullshit. How is women speaking out about sexism in the workplaces somehow blaming the victim? How is it that a man can be a victim of being accused of sexism, yet somehow a woman is always at fault when sexist things happened to her
Really, why shouldn't they be more tolerant of someone who is inexperienced? How else is one supposed to become experienced, especially if for whatever reason they missed that development during their youth?
Why should a poor person be tolerant of a rich person thinking they deserve more rights than them? Why should a black person be tolerant of someone thinking that they are lesser because their skin is darker? Just because these "inexperienced" men don't know how to interact with women doesn't mean they are in the right. It just means society thinks it's alright to condition boys and young men to be hostile to women, and men who (for whatever reason) don't experience meaningful female companionship/relationships keep their infantile conditioning into adulthood.
The fact that you ask for women to cater to men is a classic case of "privilege". You're so used to males having all the power and influence, you want women to change their behaviour to better cater to you.
See, here you admit women can dress slutty or frumpy, but before you said "A woman gets harassed and you think SHE STARTED IT by being ATTRACTIVE?" as if to imply that she can't possibly start it. But getting dressed in the morning is most definitely starting something, one way or the other.
I was using an easily understood word. It doesn't mean I agree with the social conditions and attitudes that feed into it's meaning. An anti-racism advocate can say "nigger" when they're talking about some issue or other, that doesn't mean that suddenly they want to go putting strange fruit on the southern trees.
Sea urchins taste awesome you insenstive clod! Rich, salty and slightly disturbing, they go well with a slice or lemon and chillies (almost everything that comes out of the sea goes well with those things though). Don't eat them while you're drinking though, the slightly unsettling texture gets plenty unsettling when drunk and slightly nauseous.
Yes they do very well and thank you very much.
Thanks for the information. If I had a sockpuppet account I'd mod this up! Maybe the use of java as the language of instruction in so many lower tier universities pumped out compsci grads that were sub-par programmers who coded primarily in java? That's another idea I've heard floating around, maybe you could enlighten me on that? In my experience I have just seen so few good projects coded substantially in java.
American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. "These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
I don't know, nor care about how knowledgeable you are about your own personal sky fairy, but generally, atheists have followed the narrative of being raised in a religion and then giving it up. Most religious people belong to their religions by an accident of birth (or politics in some cases), and there was no great reflection of the whys and wherefores of their religion. Because you believe in something through sheer cultural inertia does not make you more knowledgeable, in fact the opposite.
Because the Fox article seems to be the most retarded one of the bunch. Most other news sites mention the "gamer code of lua" or was that "LUA" in passing. The Fix article makes it one of the main points. This is what happens when they get too used to publishing opinions.
I've never had a problem so far as long as I've only used the proper APIs and not implementation-specific class.
I'm curious, did your apps have a native-looking GUI (like most consumer apps), and was performance important (like most games)? You can have any type of programming language that can output executables (or run scripts) on any supported platform as long as you stay away from "implementation-specific classes". I'm not saying that WORA with Java is impossible or something, just that programmers were promised a panacea that would make cross platform applications a commonplace feature. History shows that it's harder than just writing something for a multi-platform VM.
It's possible that the next time something like Java is being considered as an open-source target that the owners will carefully plan and consider how they can make it available without the same thing happening. But it's far, far more likely that they just won't bother at all.
Java failed in it's promise of Write Once, Run Anywhere a long time before Dalvik came to the scene. It's more like Google saw how fucked up Java was (with SE, ME and EE), and decided to do their own version , you know, like how Microsoft has .Net.
Most explorers were "truckers" of their era.
From the libertarian viewpoint, these groups are fairly easy to defeat. Take away their assets and they're no longer a self respecting corporation. These businesses have hard assets that are hard to hide or move. They cause this sort of trouble, then break or take their assets (libertarians allow for such force in response to coercion).
This is assuming the local population have the weapons, skill, numbers and will to oppose and win over a powerful corporation. My opinion is that advances in weapons technology and tactics makes this a very unlikely thing. It's been exactly 200 years after 1812, and if rural farmers with consumer grade firearms tried to do the same to a private army fielded by a corporation today, things would turn out gruesomely different. Unmanned drones. Smart bombs and mines. Satellite surveillance. Sure we like to watch the Rebels defeat the Empire, but in real life, this is unlikely.
I think a greater weakness of the libertarian viewpoint is simply that people historically choose safety over freedom. One needs social infrastructure that supports the libertarian strategy, eg, choosing to take on a tyrant, oppressive business, or crime lord and doing so in an organized way. This infrastructure simply doesn't exist in most of the world.
Exactly, most people are cowards (if they aren't pushed too much). Historically, the best way to assure freedoms for the maximum amount of people have been powerful governments with democratically elected representation, because it's easier to fight with words than bullets. The great danger of revolutions is now becoming apparent in places like Egypt (France is a good historical example). With Islamists gaining power in Egypt, it is becoming apparent that what the people most want is a government as reductively religious as most of the region.
What I mean in those last sentences is that once the chaos from the revolution dies down and the dust settles, there might be groups in power that were worse than what was deposed. There are amoral opportunists waiting for a revolution just like there are virtuous libertarians.
You need to read up on old concepts like "company towns" and "indentured labour". I know unions are all unfashionable now, but during the industrial revolution, their formation lead to the improvement of quality of life for workers everywhere, rather than just those who "owned the means of production", as they say. What Libertarians don't realize (because it has become uncommon in their lifetimes) is that when a corporation has enough power to effectively BE the government in a local area, things can only get worse. The "invisible hand" that they cherish so much only works in certain market conditions. Conditions that any self respecting corporation will seek to prevent as soon as they gain enough power.
Yes my world view DOESN'T represent everyone's life experiences. Neither does your. What was your point?
1. Strawman argument. ad hominem. I never said I or anyone see women as orifices. This accusation is just a stupid shaming tactic. There's a BIG difference between intrinsic attractiveness triggering occasional unwanted attention, and blatantly shining it on to manipulate, and/or prop up petty narcissism, then complaining about unwanted attention. My language made it obvious I'm talking about the latter, which makes up the majority of anecdotal examples I've seen. In fact, this kind of thing is dramatized in the media quite a bit as 'girl power' moments, complete with the woman gloating about how she managed to extract some favor from a guy.
What is it? A strawman or an ad hominem? I suggest you ask a close female friend/relative to take you to common clothing outlets that sell women's clothes. A trend you might notice going from shelf to shelf is an overabundance of either thin/sheer, low-cut tops/knee high skirts. Most good clothes are also revealing clothes. It is assumed that a woman looking for clothes that don't accentuate her sexual characteristics is a fatty with low self esteem. This shows not only through attitudes, but also the distribution of quality and the "revealingness" of clothes.
Another thing you might want to have a deep conversation with this female about, is how society regulates what clothes they wear. They can't dress too slutty, or even the "feminist" guys feel entitled to pass comments, and other women start getting hostile. Yet if they dress too "frumpy", suddenly they're attacked by people who were perfectly civil to them when they were dressed with their "warpaint" on. Women are judged on their appearances in ways that men are not. A man can be brilliant, reliable, successful, and completely physically unattractive. Opinions about this man will range from his achievements to his net worth, etc. A woman can be brilliant, reliable, successful and completely physically unattractive. Opinions about her will always primarily focus on the fact that she's ugly.
no kidding.. it isn't the love boat. so put some clothes on, turn down the sensitivity knob and learn to put verbal rubbish in perspective, like males have had to long before there was a homo sapiens sapiens. We're all equals here, supposedly, so if they can do it, you can too. Anyway, feminists have no right to demand that men not dictate femininity while they work at redefining masculinity and male behavior to be what they want it to. It's blatantly hypocritical. ..and if you are the type who uses her assets to manipulate, then you do have yourself to blame for sure. You wanted the attention, now you got it.
The thing is that when a man is being insulted by other men, he (the individual) is being attacked. In many male-dominated workplaces, when the men insult a female that's new to the job, they don't attack her, they often aim their attacks at women in general. They don't have any experience with dealing with women other than in a sexual context (or imagined sexual context), and so their insults always carry the stench of sexism. That's how I'VE seen it play out a lot of times. Anecdote for anecdote.
It's true that there are a lot of crazy feminists out there (radfems and the like). But at it's heart, feminism, like anti-racism, is all about trying to foster equality in the world, and that should be considered a good thing, no matter how many retarded bandwagon jumpers give it a bad name. You have no idea just how much of femininity is controlled and defined by what men think. Try a little more empathy next time. Those co-workers you say are trying to entrap you with their feminine wiles (I'll just assume this is an accurate description of reality), are really sad twisted little girls who were told the sick message that their physical attractiveness was the sum of their entire worth. People are not raised in a vacuum, and the past leaves it's scars on the present.
If you've got a lot of guys harassing you, maybe your behavior is playing a role too. See this is another area that irks me: apparently men are the sole proprietors of sexual non-verbal cues and women are just helpless, molested bystanders. This just isn't true. Women started it when they set themselves up to look attractive in the first place (which 99% of women do, of course).
What the fuck dude. What. The. Fuck. Women are attractive because they are attractive. If you don't have the mental discipline to set aside sexual attraction and deal with a co-worker as a person and not a set of orifices, then it's YOU who's the problem. A woman gets harassed and you think SHE STARTED IT by being ATTRACTIVE? What is she supposed to walk around in a burqa? I for one, can enjoy the scenery without getting handsy or passing comments, and if I think something I might say or do is inappropriate, I suppose my "feminist training" kicks in, and I judge for myself whether it's appropriate or not
As a male, I can tell you this: when a woman is interested, it's very obvious. when a woman is not interested, but is flattered, she is obvious, even when she vehemently denies her interest. men can see that, so they pursue. they have their nature just as women have theirs. Since I don't know how you dress or any details of your situation, I can't comment further, but this is generally what I've seen go down
So what? It's supposed to be a workplace, not the Love Boat. Once again, if you can't reign in your mating impulses, it's not someone else's problem if they can conceal theirs better. Spend some time with females in a non-"I wanna fuck you" context. Read a few books about "the male gaze".
Children conform ALL THE TIME. Children look for scripts that other people (especially adults or older children) use and try to adapt them for themselves. How would little girls know that they're supposed to wear pink things and get married in a huge fairy tale ceremony if it wasn't shoved down their throats from the minute they appear to understand spoken words? It's in every cartoon they watch, every fairy tale they hear, and even in advertising aimed at them. Also for little boys, how are they supposed to know that they like rough play, taking things apart (only the geeky ones will try to put it back together) and almost anything to do with sports? Their parents, fellow children and the media, that's how.
Even the determined non-conformist who doesn't wear the clothes all the other high schoolers are wearing, doesn't want to go to prom because "it's like so fake!", blah blah blah . They're mostly using the same script, just as a negative rather than a positive. There are few truly original people in the world, the rest just adapt the scripts their culture give their demographic in a way that suits them.
Looking back on our childhoods, it SEEMS like we made every decision ourselves, and that our preferences were these deep innate drives that we followed, but the truth is that most of what we are today is through upbringing and experience. Genetics accounts for VERY little of the differences between the sexes.
Would you like to cite any concrete sources that show the author does 90% and that the author gets less of the profit than the publisher? No doubt the author does the most important work, but surely the polish a proper publishing team can bring to bear on a book can elevate it above most of the 99c self-published crap on the Kindle Store.
So all those islamic nuts going around splashing acid in the faces of women who weren't wearing a burqa were just interested in keeping them in optimum clothing for their environment?
Yes because attacking someone's grammar instead of the substance of their statements is always a good move that shows good faith discussion.
“As to Mr. Ravi. Let me stay this to you in advance. Nothing I say is intended in any way to disparage you or to demean you. I don’t even know you Whatever I say is said for the purpose of there being a full record. I heard this jury say guilty 288 times. 24 questions, 12 jurors. That’s the multiplication. And I haven’t heard you apologize once. And the letter you gave to the pre-sentence people, I’ll called unimpressive. I know in that letter you apologize to Tyler and his family, but you didn’t even mention M.B. and the seven cover-up charges. and here are some of the most salient ironies The person who described your conduct best, [Tyler Clementi,] isn’t even here I know I redacted that comment from the jury, but I didn’t redact it from myself. While your letter doesn’t even mention M.B., he wrote a letter trying to help you avoid deportaiton, which is the main reason when I sign my judgement there will be a notation that you not be deported. It’s understood of course that that’s not my final decision In my opening statements, Ms. McClure described your conduct as mean-spirited, malicious, and criminal. Mr. Altman described it as juvenile and prankish. Now if anyone is wondering why two incredibly competent attorneys disagree, its for the simplest reason in the world: it depends on which side of the camera you’re on You can expunge this judgement, but you cannot expunge the conduct or the pain you caused.”
Invasion of privacy is not a crime? Wow, when it's a gay man at risk, instead of their browsing history, suddenly slashdotters don't give a shit about privacy... Makes me wonder...
It should be really called "liberty crimes" because the intended effect of most hate crimes is to curtail someone's freedom. "Oh, I can't vote in next month's elections or move into a white neighborhood, or the burning cross in front of my house will become a gibbet, like what happened to the family down the road" thinks a black man under the heel of the KKK in the 60's. Similarly, gay students at Rutgers watching the humiliation unfold online, or may be word-of-mouth, will think "Oh, I can't have sex in my dorm room, even if I ask my roommate to vacate for a while (a classic behaviour immortalized in many college movies), something like what happened to Tyler will happen to me". Do you see the chilling effect the crime has on others in the community?
You're forgetting about CSIRO and all the crazy anti-aussie nonsense going around the tech blogs and comment sections last month... How about a third category: "Companies (or other organizations) who actually do research, develop useful products, but are situated in a foreign country." The image they have seems to be determined by how jingoistic the US tech media can get away with in their editorials without being too obvious.