You even become a better coder if you are not glued to the internet socket all day long.
You will not if you declare computers the devil and refuse to use one made after 1986.
They shouldn't fill your whole life any more than a hammer or a frying pan.
And they shouldn't be completely removed either. Some carpenters over use the powerdrill but I definitely don't want my entire house to be constructed with a hammer.
It became the same when you let "the powers that be" arbitrarily decide what is secret and what is not secret. As soon as you allowed them to define anything that is politically disadvantageous as "classified" you allowed them to define anything they don't like as classified. And from your spurious reasoning for treason gave them the power to pretty much identify anyone as treasonous. Massive, constitutionally-hazy data collection efforts should be "general information" and not secret anyway.
Except if the point of getting the fingerprint is to tie a person to a print all you really need is the hash. How exactly do you think fingerprint databases work? (It's not like they show on CSI.)
To continue your traditional login system example if I had a database of user,hash pairs I could query the database and say "What user uses this password".
A collection of strawmen and glaring logical contradictions. You are correct- that is very indicative of the "young people are the worst" meme repeated throughout history.
... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
A distinct, established and visible trend is slightly different than slippery slope. And although the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy so is disregarding things because someone made a logical fallacy.
Basically "just because it's a slippery slope doesn't mean it's not a downward spiral".
Lot of words, same shallow message - I don't want to pay for my entertainment.
You are projecting. You ignore all evidence that doesn't support your bias. You know that the largest pirates also spend the most on media but they must just want a free ride right?
The message is simple. You cannot stop piracy. Most people watch / encounter more media than they could possibly afford to pay "market" rates for. Yet the industry makes money with absolutely no problem. Even with their terrible services. Therefore most of us thinking adults have concluded that it is not a world shattering problem. There is no justification for all of these huge efforts / wastes of money blocking people from doing many legitimate things under the excuse of fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
Pray tell, is there a coherent argument as to why I must 'share' my cake instead of enjoying it myself?
Because you are putting it on the market? You are perfectly free to keep it to yourself and never show anyone. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to make money that way.
Sexism isn't something that magically comes into existence when an observer becomes "offended."
That seems to be your opinion of it though. Because this isn't sexist except by the definition that some women are offended by it.
Maybe an ab-staring app would feel the same way to a lot of men. But a) there isn't one, which should tell you something
Hot men! Looks like men are ogled too! There's no sexism there; just biology.
It's saying that a woman's reasonable expectation of being able to peaceably attend a conference and not be confronted with leering strangers all the damn time (which is a reasonable expectation) is outweighed by the fun and frivolity of this oh-so-clever app idea and those clever lads who came up with it.
This app / joke has absolutely zero effect on anyone "leering" at strangers. None, aucun, ningun. This is a funny and clever app to a lot of people. That some don't find it so does not make it sexist. It would almost certainly get millions of downloads from highschool to university aged males and provide hours of entertainment for them. Which is probably why it made it to the event. Who would have thought a joke repeated a million times a day in all facets of life would suddenly become the worst thing in the world.
The whole incident is pretty directly saying to women that their little bit of dignity and respect in a businesses setting is less than a joke to the organizers.
No it does not. I will agree that sexism is a problem in many tech fields (and non-tech fields) but "men look at boobs" is not an example of that. Approximately 50% of the population is, quite literally, wired to look at boobs and to like them. Why are we stigmatizing sexuality? I thought we were supposed to be past the "shame on your sex drive" mantra of the dark ages.
I understand your point and agree with you except that you don't have to right to control what other people see, look at or think about. I also imagine that your clothes aren't designed to bring attention to your junk. If you wore pants that showed off your bulge people would certainly make note of it. Being checked out does not make you less of a human. It is part of being a human.
It would only be sexist if those same people got offended by an "ab staring app". I somehow doubt they would have a problem with it. I agree it is immature but let's not attach malice where there is none.
No they weren't. A claim was made that it is not sexism in any real definition of the word with provided reasoning. They are not irrelevant because they show you to be wrong. Your view is irrelevant because you won't back it up with reason.
Objectification - The summary of a person's value by one's body parts.
Insensitivity - Acting without regards to another's likelihood of taking offense.
Noting another's physical attractiveness or physical properties is not objectification. It is also very strongly wired into our brains insofar that I would consider it part of the human condition. Marginalizing people for showing this behaviour is never going to end well.
Insensitivity is not objectively bad either. There are many things that people take offense to that still have to be said. I think you would be hard pressed to find any humorous joke that wouldn't be offensive to somebody.
Somewhere there is a line where being overly sensitive is far more damaging to society than the "insensitivity" it fights against. I have no idea where that line is nor do I think it is easily definable. This event is probably somewhere in its backyard though.
Sigh, always re-read in depth after changing a sentence half way through. Sentence should read "By the time my finger is off the initial P my left hand is already pressing the E". Or "By the time my finger is off the initial P my other fingers have hit EO". What a stupid mistake.
It's a question of credibility. If we see someone use inane short forms, bad punctuation and horrendous use of the comma splice we are not going to think you put much thought into what you wrote. People that write like that are usually either older people whom have never learned to write properly (and that is a matter of intelligence) or young people that tend to believe they are more intelligent than they are.
Additionally for most of us here "ppl" would not be any faster than "people" for typing. By the time my finger is off the initial P my left hand has already filled in the EO for the second P press.
There is a loss in comprehension for those of us that have been reading proper English for our whole lives. Much faster to parse "people" than it is to parse "ppl".
not really. No one tells me whether or not I can go someplace.
Hop on a plane to Cuba then. Or make too many trips to some place like Iran (that's where the monitoring comes in).
So what?
Awh yes. So it's not oppressive because you don't care about it. Sorry, I wasn't aware that was the metric we were using. They have no reason to do it. That's why it is oppressive. There have been many places where the majority has said otherwise. They get overruled.
extremely rare.
I was under the impression that "plea bargaining" was business as usual. At least I've read of a few prominent prosecutors use that as an excuse.
Otherwise, not so much.
Assange, Manning, Snowdon. All of them had a lot of effort put into discrediting their reputability.
which is why I hate the term. The US government is made up of several agencies/bureaus. Each one with a differing about of bureaucracy.
In the great words of geekoid "so what?" They still all come together to make things how they are.
Do you know why mankind invented bureaucracy? so we can do complex things well.
And that means bureaucracy is always good right? That it can never cause problems and be counter-productive?
the US isn't oppressive in any meaningful way.
They have the highest prison population in the world! I'd consider that a meaningful way. There is something wrong there! You have only defined "meaningful" as something that directly affects yourself. There is at least one very famous quote I can think of dealing with that exact outlook. They are not oppressive in the same way as other prominent examples but that does not mean everything is A-Ok. Sometimes I think the worst thing people like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler did to this world weren't their massive crimes against humanity but instead the fact that now people say: "Everything is fine because at least we're not under _X_".
You see relevant news stories on CNN / MSNBC / Fox.
Not necessarily (I certainly don't anyway). How many news articles do people see in reality? Especially ones with enough technical detail that an IT admin could say "we're vulnerable to that exact situation".
Talking in business risks isn't really an IT person's job nor is it their expertise (so they wouldn't be able to do it well). If management is already ignoring their senior IT staff then if IT came and tried to sound "businessy" management is likely to pat them on the head and reply with "you let me worry about the business".
Should it not be management's job to know that security vulnerabilities lead to business problems? Why is it IT's responsibility to learn business management, legal requirements, etc?
If I go to management and say "the fire escape is broken" it is their responsibility to deal with it and understand the consequences (that is what they're paid the big bucks for after-all). I don't have to go through case law, reports and news story and provide them with a powerpoint documenting that company X got fined 50 trillion dollars for having a broken fire escape and we have an P% probability of having the same happen.
Please show me any documentation that a population of people hunting/fishing for their own food and nothing more has destroyed an animal population
Humans are blamed for having hunted many species to extinction. Your point falls flat. Sure if a hunter / gatherer society decimates its food source the humans will soon die too. Or, you know, go take some one else's food. Unfortunately our population has grown far beyond hunter gatherer levels and allowing people to hunt at will pretty much ensures decimation of its prey's population.
Slashdot Mirror
You even become a better coder if you are not glued to the internet socket all day long.
You will not if you declare computers the devil and refuse to use one made after 1986.
They shouldn't fill your whole life any more than a hammer or a frying pan.
And they shouldn't be completely removed either. Some carpenters over use the powerdrill but I definitely don't want my entire house to be constructed with a hammer.
I tell them to go live in a cave in the mountains like humans did before alcohol was invented. It's the only way to beat the addiction.
It became the same when you let "the powers that be" arbitrarily decide what is secret and what is not secret. As soon as you allowed them to define anything that is politically disadvantageous as "classified" you allowed them to define anything they don't like as classified. And from your spurious reasoning for treason gave them the power to pretty much identify anyone as treasonous. Massive, constitutionally-hazy data collection efforts should be "general information" and not secret anyway.
Except if the point of getting the fingerprint is to tie a person to a print all you really need is the hash. How exactly do you think fingerprint databases work? (It's not like they show on CSI.)
To continue your traditional login system example if I had a database of user,hash pairs I could query the database and say "What user uses this password".
And textbooks teach them to build bombs. Better hang all the physicists and burn all the books.
And that crap just keeps getting worse, since the record labels know that people want to hear loud, repetitive music that they can dance to.
You mean people might want to dance to music?! They must be so stupid.
A collection of strawmen and glaring logical contradictions. You are correct- that is very indicative of the "young people are the worst" meme repeated throughout history.
It does mean they have a misunderstanding of what objectively means, however.
So what do you suggest? No one discus science or perform studies because there's a good chance in the future more information will come to light?
Let me suggest some reading for you: Relativity of wrong.
tl;dr :
... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
A distinct, established and visible trend is slightly different than slippery slope. And although the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy so is disregarding things because someone made a logical fallacy.
Basically "just because it's a slippery slope doesn't mean it's not a downward spiral".
Perhaps that's why they were declared in law? But please continue making redundant obtuse statements. That's what makes Slashdot so great.
Lot of words, same shallow message - I don't want to pay for my entertainment.
You are projecting. You ignore all evidence that doesn't support your bias. You know that the largest pirates also spend the most on media but they must just want a free ride right?
The message is simple. You cannot stop piracy. Most people watch / encounter more media than they could possibly afford to pay "market" rates for. Yet the industry makes money with absolutely no problem. Even with their terrible services. Therefore most of us thinking adults have concluded that it is not a world shattering problem. There is no justification for all of these huge efforts / wastes of money blocking people from doing many legitimate things under the excuse of fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
Pray tell, is there a coherent argument as to why I must 'share' my cake instead of enjoying it myself?
Because you are putting it on the market? You are perfectly free to keep it to yourself and never show anyone. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to make money that way.
Sexism isn't something that magically comes into existence when an observer becomes "offended."
That seems to be your opinion of it though. Because this isn't sexist except by the definition that some women are offended by it.
Maybe an ab-staring app would feel the same way to a lot of men. But a) there isn't one, which should tell you something
Hot men! Looks like men are ogled too! There's no sexism there; just biology.
It's saying that a woman's reasonable expectation of being able to peaceably attend a conference and not be confronted with leering strangers all the damn time (which is a reasonable expectation) is outweighed by the fun and frivolity of this oh-so-clever app idea and those clever lads who came up with it.
This app / joke has absolutely zero effect on anyone "leering" at strangers. None, aucun, ningun. This is a funny and clever app to a lot of people. That some don't find it so does not make it sexist. It would almost certainly get millions of downloads from highschool to university aged males and provide hours of entertainment for them. Which is probably why it made it to the event. Who would have thought a joke repeated a million times a day in all facets of life would suddenly become the worst thing in the world.
The whole incident is pretty directly saying to women that their little bit of dignity and respect in a businesses setting is less than a joke to the organizers.
No it does not. I will agree that sexism is a problem in many tech fields (and non-tech fields) but "men look at boobs" is not an example of that. Approximately 50% of the population is, quite literally, wired to look at boobs and to like them. Why are we stigmatizing sexuality? I thought we were supposed to be past the "shame on your sex drive" mantra of the dark ages.
just don't stare at it when I'm talking to you.
I understand your point and agree with you except that you don't have to right to control what other people see, look at or think about. I also imagine that your clothes aren't designed to bring attention to your junk. If you wore pants that showed off your bulge people would certainly make note of it. Being checked out does not make you less of a human. It is part of being a human.
It would only be sexist if those same people got offended by an "ab staring app". I somehow doubt they would have a problem with it. I agree it is immature but let's not attach malice where there is none.
No they weren't. A claim was made that it is not sexism in any real definition of the word with provided reasoning. They are not irrelevant because they show you to be wrong. Your view is irrelevant because you won't back it up with reason.
Objectification - The summary of a person's value by one's body parts.
Insensitivity - Acting without regards to another's likelihood of taking offense.
Noting another's physical attractiveness or physical properties is not objectification. It is also very strongly wired into our brains insofar that I would consider it part of the human condition. Marginalizing people for showing this behaviour is never going to end well.
Insensitivity is not objectively bad either. There are many things that people take offense to that still have to be said. I think you would be hard pressed to find any humorous joke that wouldn't be offensive to somebody.
Somewhere there is a line where being overly sensitive is far more damaging to society than the "insensitivity" it fights against. I have no idea where that line is nor do I think it is easily definable. This event is probably somewhere in its backyard though.
Sigh, always re-read in depth after changing a sentence half way through. Sentence should read "By the time my finger is off the initial P my left hand is already pressing the E". Or "By the time my finger is off the initial P my other fingers have hit EO". What a stupid mistake.
It's a question of credibility. If we see someone use inane short forms, bad punctuation and horrendous use of the comma splice we are not going to think you put much thought into what you wrote. People that write like that are usually either older people whom have never learned to write properly (and that is a matter of intelligence) or young people that tend to believe they are more intelligent than they are.
Additionally for most of us here "ppl" would not be any faster than "people" for typing. By the time my finger is off the initial P my left hand has already filled in the EO for the second P press.
There is a loss in comprehension for those of us that have been reading proper English for our whole lives. Much faster to parse "people" than it is to parse "ppl".
not really. No one tells me whether or not I can go someplace.
Hop on a plane to Cuba then. Or make too many trips to some place like Iran (that's where the monitoring comes in).
So what?
Awh yes. So it's not oppressive because you don't care about it. Sorry, I wasn't aware that was the metric we were using. They have no reason to do it. That's why it is oppressive. There have been many places where the majority has said otherwise. They get overruled.
extremely rare.
I was under the impression that "plea bargaining" was business as usual. At least I've read of a few prominent prosecutors use that as an excuse.
Otherwise, not so much.
Assange, Manning, Snowdon. All of them had a lot of effort put into discrediting their reputability.
which is why I hate the term. The US government is made up of several agencies/bureaus. Each one with a differing about of bureaucracy.
In the great words of geekoid "so what?" They still all come together to make things how they are.
Do you know why mankind invented bureaucracy? so we can do complex things well.
And that means bureaucracy is always good right? That it can never cause problems and be counter-productive?
the US isn't oppressive in any meaningful way.
They have the highest prison population in the world! I'd consider that a meaningful way. There is something wrong there! You have only defined "meaningful" as something that directly affects yourself. There is at least one very famous quote I can think of dealing with that exact outlook. They are not oppressive in the same way as other prominent examples but that does not mean everything is A-Ok. Sometimes I think the worst thing people like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler did to this world weren't their massive crimes against humanity but instead the fact that now people say: "Everything is fine because at least we're not under _X_".
You see relevant news stories on CNN / MSNBC / Fox.
Not necessarily (I certainly don't anyway). How many news articles do people see in reality? Especially ones with enough technical detail that an IT admin could say "we're vulnerable to that exact situation".
Talking in business risks isn't really an IT person's job nor is it their expertise (so they wouldn't be able to do it well). If management is already ignoring their senior IT staff then if IT came and tried to sound "businessy" management is likely to pat them on the head and reply with "you let me worry about the business".
Should it not be management's job to know that security vulnerabilities lead to business problems? Why is it IT's responsibility to learn business management, legal requirements, etc?
If I go to management and say "the fire escape is broken" it is their responsibility to deal with it and understand the consequences (that is what they're paid the big bucks for after-all). I don't have to go through case law, reports and news story and provide them with a powerpoint documenting that company X got fined 50 trillion dollars for having a broken fire escape and we have an P% probability of having the same happen.
Please show me any documentation that a population of people hunting/fishing for their own food and nothing more has destroyed an animal population
Humans are blamed for having hunted many species to extinction. Your point falls flat. Sure if a hunter / gatherer society decimates its food source the humans will soon die too. Or, you know, go take some one else's food. Unfortunately our population has grown far beyond hunter gatherer levels and allowing people to hunt at will pretty much ensures decimation of its prey's population.
it would be very very difficult for anything but a massive population to overfish
A massive population like most human settlements adjacent to major fish stocks?