Masculinity isn't toxic. But we define what is toxic about it and it is just a coincidence any disagreement with this comes from its toxicity. Our cargo-cult research is totally infallible. Except the research that doesn't confirm our biases.
Beards and breasts are not the same despite sharing many common letters- got it. More seriously: just because two things are both secondary sexual characteristics does not mean they are the same in any other aspect. If many to most large cultures consider something sexual there is likely a reason for it.
It is almost as though there is a sexually dimorphic and evolutionary difference between male breats and female breasts. I wonder if anyone has ever looked into that?
So no, you can't name any large scale non-western societies. Why didn't you just say that?
And once you get into the Amazon or to more remote African tribes, no-one cares except for the missionaries.
So you agree that men should let their knobs fly free? Women's breasts are sexual. You can only argue otherwise from complete ignorance. And it would seem that large societies tend to prefer people to cover up their sexual organs under most circumstances. The why on that would be an interesting discussion. It likely has to do with reducing competition and increasing cohesion because of that blah blah blah. That preference existing is, however, a fact. And it is not something uniquely from the West unless you count pretty much anything east of Europe to be the West. But then you'd just be an idiot.
because women's breasts are fetishized in western society. That's not a natural thing, there are societies where it isn't the case.
Can you name one large scale non-western society that doesn't? Western cultures are over-all the most open about topless women but that doesn't mean it is not sexual. Women's breast are a sexual signifier; trying to deny it doesn't make it stop being so. Clothes in general are "not natural" but somehow I doubt you're advocating men should be running around with their wangs out.
Attempting to be derisive toward me doesn't make your point better. Your statement wasn't that complicated; it was easy to understand what you meant. "Ignore what he has to say because he is underhanded." You actually said, in plain English, to ignore his arguments. Then claimed he makes logical fallacies and is underhanded. That was the only substance to what you said.
You attacked the person and told people to ignore the argument. I am not sure how much of a better example of an ad hominem it could be. What, exactly, do you think an ad hominem fallacy is?
Are you trying to convince others here or just reassure yourself?
Saying somebody is underhanded and therefore you shouldn't listen to what they have to say is pretty much the definition of ad-hom.
I've always been a little curious as to whether you are aware of the extremely transparent semantic misdirections you try to use or if you actually believe them yourself.
"Consciousness" could easily be a feedback loop that adjusts the difference engine that makes the pre-programmed responses.
You react to stimulus. Your consciousness evaluates if it was a good/bad reaction and the process makes adjustments. Consciousness may be an emergent property of a strong feedback loop and not of free will.
Fair enough; I was talking about both somewhat unclearly. Bypassing geolocks with a vpn is almost certainly breaking copyright law. And rest assured that these companies do complain about people doing and think they should be prosecuted. To make an attempt to articulate my point concisely: These companies are making a lot of effort to piss off the people that are technically in charge of granting them the "right" to their intellectual property. I think it would be helpful if their position was actually what the law said it was.
Nope. The public funds come from enforcing copyright. That is what the story is about- the people that didn't care about Netflix blocking them and deciding to get the content a different way. Netflix probably feels entitled to public funds for stopping people watching Daredevil.
You are right- this is nothing like civil disobedience in protest of civil rights laws. This is the public saying "we don't give a shit". These aren't "property" rights; this is important to note. These are intellectual property rights granted by the public. The rights holders have repeatedly completely ignored the public that granted them those rights. The public is just returning the favour. The letter of the law says that we're the boss in this scenario.
Copyright is a "right" granted by the public to private entities. The the public should have the ability to revoke this granted right if they believe the private entities are not holding up their end of the bargain. I believe the public has spoken. The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
The fact that these companies are making money while people have a complete lack of respect for their copyrights isn't a good argument in favour of copyright.
But dance clubs tend to have lots of women enjoying themselves. Try going to one some time. They are fun and most people there are actually very friendly.
Agreed. No matter what rules are put in place the people that don't do the work will end up wanting more than possible out of the people that do.
This is where you need "leadership" from the development team. Go ahead and fuck up my sprint. I'll tell you form the get-go that it's probably not going to work. And when it doesn't I will hold you responsible.
This requires a "corporate culture" that allows for this. But I would say successful software development requires some form of listening to the devs. That said our product owners do mostly listen to us so this isn't a problem in the first place.
It does if you account for it. It helps if everyone on your team knows ahead before the sprint when they will be off. It's just a matter of guessing how much the missing people will cost the team in how much it can get done. In reality agile accounts for missing people really well. If the sprint goals aren't met then too bad. Unfortunately no one respects that aspect of agile.
It probably largely depends on how it is implemented at your company. A lot of scrum seems to have been created because "Agile doesn't allow managers enough micro-managing power". Add to that if you hire someone whose sole job is scrum meetings they're probably going to have a lot of them just to look busy. Where I work we use "scrum team captains" instead and the teams are largely autonomous. I am just a developer that handles a lot of the extra scrum stuff. And since I hate meetings and I'm in charge of scheduling them the team gets to avoid most of them.
By "horrible backtracking" you mean "a mouse hover" or at worst looking at the return type of the call it is coming from. If that is "horrible" to you then you are probably not cut out for development. It cuts down on unnecessary verbosity- this is good. And to reiterate this feature is designed to work seamlessly with Microsoft's development tools. They don't care if your Java IDE doesn't support it (and neither do I).
C# is a lot harder to maintain than Java
An empty assertion and an incorrect reasoning. C# is probably harder to maintain to you because, as we've already established, you are not experienced with it.
You are allowed to dislike C# "just because". You don't have to invent reasons to argue Java is better. Every flaw you can find in C# will almost definitely be present in Java as well. It will just take more columns to suck:p
Apparently the major shortcoming with C# is that you don't understand it. Which is a shortcoming with you- not with it.
As already pointed out "var" is not a dynamic type; it is inferred at compile time. This is to avoid common OO annoyances like:
LongDescriptiveOverlyWordyClassName thing = new LongDescriptiveOveryWordyClassName();
It is designed to be closely tied to the MS Visual Studio ecosystem because Intellisense will tell you instantly what type it is if for some reason you are unsure. With good coding style you should always be sure what type it is based on context.
You don't see people walking around with one litter cups of coffee
Give it a year. Starbucks' large is 24oz for hot drinks. 30 something for cold. The sizes on "coffees" (how much sugar do you think is in the average beverage sold at starbucks?) is also going up. Especially with the more common use of large travel mugs to keep them hot.
Would she (I'll even settle for you) ever admit there are "well reasoned and articulated" criticisms of her work in existence? Just one. I've noticed a pretty distinct trend of complete silence on any critiques and seemingly an attempt to frame it as the only opposition is in the form of harassment. Maybe I'm wrong and I'd love for you to correct me. Will you label me as anything other than a "gamergater" for simply asking the question?
Thunderfoot isn't particularly nice to her but he really doesn't have to be. He makes fun of her- so what? People make fun of all kinds of things on the Internet. You complain about his "memes" but he's trying to be entertaining and using humour.
You complain about him targeting harassment at Sarkeesian but repeat again and again how there is a "campaign" to get him "defunded". The fact that you seem completely oblivious to the connotations of this could probably make a good psychology case study.
Slashdot Mirror
Masculinity isn't toxic. But we define what is toxic about it and it is just a coincidence any disagreement with this comes from its toxicity. Our cargo-cult research is totally infallible. Except the research that doesn't confirm our biases.
Beards and breasts are not the same despite sharing many common letters- got it. More seriously: just because two things are both secondary sexual characteristics does not mean they are the same in any other aspect. If many to most large cultures consider something sexual there is likely a reason for it.
It is almost as though there is a sexually dimorphic and evolutionary difference between male breats and female breasts. I wonder if anyone has ever looked into that?
So no, you can't name any large scale non-western societies. Why didn't you just say that?
And once you get into the Amazon or to more remote African tribes, no-one cares except for the missionaries.
So you agree that men should let their knobs fly free? Women's breasts are sexual. You can only argue otherwise from complete ignorance. And it would seem that large societies tend to prefer people to cover up their sexual organs under most circumstances. The why on that would be an interesting discussion. It likely has to do with reducing competition and increasing cohesion because of that blah blah blah. That preference existing is, however, a fact. And it is not something uniquely from the West unless you count pretty much anything east of Europe to be the West. But then you'd just be an idiot.
because women's breasts are fetishized in western society. That's not a natural thing, there are societies where it isn't the case.
Can you name one large scale non-western society that doesn't? Western cultures are over-all the most open about topless women but that doesn't mean it is not sexual. Women's breast are a sexual signifier; trying to deny it doesn't make it stop being so. Clothes in general are "not natural" but somehow I doubt you're advocating men should be running around with their wangs out.
Attempting to be derisive toward me doesn't make your point better. Your statement wasn't that complicated; it was easy to understand what you meant. "Ignore what he has to say because he is underhanded." You actually said, in plain English, to ignore his arguments. Then claimed he makes logical fallacies and is underhanded. That was the only substance to what you said.
You attacked the person and told people to ignore the argument. I am not sure how much of a better example of an ad hominem it could be. What, exactly, do you think an ad hominem fallacy is?
Are you trying to convince others here or just reassure yourself?
Saying somebody is underhanded and therefore you shouldn't listen to what they have to say is pretty much the definition of ad-hom.
I've always been a little curious as to whether you are aware of the extremely transparent semantic misdirections you try to use or if you actually believe them yourself.
"Consciousness" could easily be a feedback loop that adjusts the difference engine that makes the pre-programmed responses.
You react to stimulus. Your consciousness evaluates if it was a good/bad reaction and the process makes adjustments. Consciousness may be an emergent property of a strong feedback loop and not of free will.
Ignore his arguments and take my word that they're totes easy to refute. Then fallacy fallacy and ad hominem fallacy.
Classic.
Fair enough; I was talking about both somewhat unclearly. Bypassing geolocks with a vpn is almost certainly breaking copyright law. And rest assured that these companies do complain about people doing and think they should be prosecuted. To make an attempt to articulate my point concisely: These companies are making a lot of effort to piss off the people that are technically in charge of granting them the "right" to their intellectual property. I think it would be helpful if their position was actually what the law said it was.
Not getting where you need to go is a bit of a penalty.
Nope. The public funds come from enforcing copyright. That is what the story is about- the people that didn't care about Netflix blocking them and deciding to get the content a different way. Netflix probably feels entitled to public funds for stopping people watching Daredevil.
You are right- this is nothing like civil disobedience in protest of civil rights laws. This is the public saying "we don't give a shit". These aren't "property" rights; this is important to note. These are intellectual property rights granted by the public. The rights holders have repeatedly completely ignored the public that granted them those rights. The public is just returning the favour. The letter of the law says that we're the boss in this scenario.
The non-essential service here is using public funds to enforce a system the public says they don't want.
Copyright is a "right" granted by the public to private entities. The the public should have the ability to revoke this granted right if they believe the private entities are not holding up their end of the bargain. I believe the public has spoken. The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
The fact that these companies are making money while people have a complete lack of respect for their copyrights isn't a good argument in favour of copyright.
It is interesting that you label anyone modding you down as abuse. Maybe the abuse of the moderation system was the "insightful"?
If that change is not easy to make then the devs involved should not be allowed anywhere near security software.
But dance clubs tend to have lots of women enjoying themselves. Try going to one some time. They are fun and most people there are actually very friendly.
And using a plural pronoun to refer to a single individual is just plain bad grammar!
... thank you for once again...
That is all.
Agreed. No matter what rules are put in place the people that don't do the work will end up wanting more than possible out of the people that do.
This is where you need "leadership" from the development team. Go ahead and fuck up my sprint. I'll tell you form the get-go that it's probably not going to work. And when it doesn't I will hold you responsible.
This requires a "corporate culture" that allows for this. But I would say successful software development requires some form of listening to the devs. That said our product owners do mostly listen to us so this isn't a problem in the first place.
It does if you account for it. It helps if everyone on your team knows ahead before the sprint when they will be off. It's just a matter of guessing how much the missing people will cost the team in how much it can get done. In reality agile accounts for missing people really well. If the sprint goals aren't met then too bad. Unfortunately no one respects that aspect of agile.
It probably largely depends on how it is implemented at your company. A lot of scrum seems to have been created because "Agile doesn't allow managers enough micro-managing power". Add to that if you hire someone whose sole job is scrum meetings they're probably going to have a lot of them just to look busy. Where I work we use "scrum team captains" instead and the teams are largely autonomous. I am just a developer that handles a lot of the extra scrum stuff. And since I hate meetings and I'm in charge of scheduling them the team gets to avoid most of them.
By "horrible backtracking" you mean "a mouse hover" or at worst looking at the return type of the call it is coming from. If that is "horrible" to you then you are probably not cut out for development. It cuts down on unnecessary verbosity- this is good. And to reiterate this feature is designed to work seamlessly with Microsoft's development tools. They don't care if your Java IDE doesn't support it (and neither do I).
C# is a lot harder to maintain than Java
An empty assertion and an incorrect reasoning. C# is probably harder to maintain to you because, as we've already established, you are not experienced with it.
You are allowed to dislike C# "just because". You don't have to invent reasons to argue Java is better. Every flaw you can find in C# will almost definitely be present in Java as well. It will just take more columns to suck :p
Apparently the major shortcoming with C# is that you don't understand it. Which is a shortcoming with you- not with it.
As already pointed out "var" is not a dynamic type; it is inferred at compile time. This is to avoid common OO annoyances like:
LongDescriptiveOverlyWordyClassName thing = new LongDescriptiveOveryWordyClassName();
It is designed to be closely tied to the MS Visual Studio ecosystem because Intellisense will tell you instantly what type it is if for some reason you are unsure. With good coding style you should always be sure what type it is based on context.
You don't see people walking around with one litter cups of coffee
Give it a year. Starbucks' large is 24oz for hot drinks. 30 something for cold. The sizes on "coffees" (how much sugar do you think is in the average beverage sold at starbucks?) is also going up. Especially with the more common use of large travel mugs to keep them hot.
Would she (I'll even settle for you) ever admit there are "well reasoned and articulated" criticisms of her work in existence? Just one. I've noticed a pretty distinct trend of complete silence on any critiques and seemingly an attempt to frame it as the only opposition is in the form of harassment. Maybe I'm wrong and I'd love for you to correct me. Will you label me as anything other than a "gamergater" for simply asking the question?
Thunderfoot isn't particularly nice to her but he really doesn't have to be. He makes fun of her- so what? People make fun of all kinds of things on the Internet. You complain about his "memes" but he's trying to be entertaining and using humour.
You complain about him targeting harassment at Sarkeesian but repeat again and again how there is a "campaign" to get him "defunded". The fact that you seem completely oblivious to the connotations of this could probably make a good psychology case study.