Every dictionary I can access at the moment has as one of the definitions sexual difference, AS PRIMARILY APPLIED TO CULTURAL DEFINITION. Sex refers to biological function. It's a useful term, especially in discussing roles of men and women because of the cultural component of the word.
First of all, of course the word gender can be applied to people; I don't know where everyone got the mistaken impression that doing so is grammatically incorrect. In it's academic sense it usually refers to a social construction rather than a biological one (some cultures will, in certain circumstances, assign male roles to females or female roles to males), but in this instance that's kind of irrelevant; in the US sex and culturally defined gender are almost always the same.
Secondly, I think a lot of the gender bias outcry began when computer science became recognized as an important field, as computers became more and more a part of daily life. How many articles do you see claiming men are driven away from the humanities? It all comes down to a value judgement, where certain disciplines are considered more important than others. The article "Why Are There So Few Female Computer Scientists?" reiterates this point by mentioning early gender stereotyping involving toys, where girls are encouraged to play with dolls while boys are encouraged to play with toy cars. Both are discouraged from playing with the other's toys; why does this automatically disadvantage girls but not boys? Why are toy cars better than dolls? Why is computer science better than English? A lot of the argument seems to come down to economics, in that computer science is more lucrative, but personally I find that a contemptible way to base an ethical system on.
The fact is women are more likely to go to college than men. They're more likely to get higher grades than men when they get there. Yes, there's a gender bias in the sciences, and yes, corrections should be made, but putting it all in terms of victims vs. victimizers just oversimplifies the problem.
Hey, if it's a grass roots movement then there's one thing it's missing: folk songs. I'm leaning towards "Come gather round children, and hear what I say, of Bill Gates' brave stand against the cruel DOJ". Need something that rhymes with "innovate" though, and ideas?
...it'll be one billion times better then the horrible hockey puck.
Alright, isn't that a slight exaggeration? I mean, it's not THAT bad; you get used to the shape pretty fast. Though I will admit another button would be handy, yesterday I actually instinctively tries to right click on a link in netscape...
Sometimes i feel really inferior compared to the males, it's almost as if they treat my like i'm stupid because i'm a girl... though i try harder then most of them to learn things...
That's probably also due to the nature of the geek world itself. Most link self-esteem to technical knowledge, and sometimes the easiest way to elevate yourself is to belittle someone else.
...but downloads of software or movies would still be copyright violations.
I think DVDs would probably fall under the movie category, though the article was a little vague. Maybe someone more legally minded could tell us why. Anyway, I don't know if the movie companies have been pulling the same kind of stuff as the record companies. I think we tend to sort of lump the whole corporate world into one big evil pile, but there are different levels of nastiness, and from what I've heard the record companies can be particularly vile.
I'm starting to get a little suspicious of the claims that there's this massive shortage in IT. It's odd, but it seems that while some people get a couple of offers a day, a sizeable chunk of the IT population has to really work at it. I get the feeling that recruiters tend to only look at certain parameters, and if you're not in them they don't even bother.
The whole ASP/distributed computing thing still hasn't taken off, even though it's been hyped for years; I still don't understand why everyone's so desperate for it. And as for MS's ".Net" (hey, can -I- copyright a TLD too?), I'd be impressed if even their marketing department could get it off the ground.
Please don't do that, brought back some very strong flashbacks of very, very long afternoons spent huddled around a dice and source-book laden table...
The whole premise though is that I would be buying the exact same computer anyway. Of course it doesn't add up if you're just doing it for the rebate, but my point was I was buying a computer and I'd need internet access. If say earthlink (which I have now) or a decent ISP was offering the rebate, I'd have gone for it, and it would have made perfect economic sense.
I have to admit, I can't really muster too much sympathy here. I mean, how can you spend your life in the US without learning how to spot deals like this? When I was buying a PC, I was seriously considering going for one of the rebate deals; I was going to have to buy internet access anyway, so in the long run it probably would have paid off. Around 800 dollar for the three year plan, minus 400 for the rebate, equals about 400 for 3 years of internet access, or a little over 10 dollars a month. I'd eventually get DSL, but I'd want a dial-up ISP for travelling anyway. Only reason I didn't go with it is the ISPs that offer it kind of suck. Other than that I don't really see the problem with it.
You know, I'm not anti-technology, but even I recognize there's a line that shouldn't really be crossed. I think this crosses it. Why on earth do you need access in your car? Access from home and work and cell phone isn't enough? Is it that bad that you might spend an hour or so a day without constant net access? OH NO I'M NOT RECEIVING TCP PACKETS IN SOME FORM, THE PAIN! gah.
IANAAE, but it doesn't sound that hard to put a satellite into orbit around the moon. Looks like they're on NASA time though ("we've planned to implement a committee to investigate the possibility of launching a craft 30 years from now"), but it's nice to see some other countries moving towards space. It all comes down to resources I guess; just about every country now has access to more advanced technology than the US had back in the 60's, but most can't muster the resources needed to get into space.
Well maybe in America we weren't that aware of it, but I was referring to people in other countries, who were often quite aware who's boot was on their neck so to speak.
Didn't they fully map another species a few years ago? I forget if it was a planarium or some other simple animal, but I remember being really impressed because they actually knew what every single one of the genes expressed...
That is funny. Funny thing about pop up ads is how good they make banner ads look...I never really understood the philosophy behind them, it's "let's create as negative impression of our product as possible" and "if someone's browsing the web for news, logic seems to dictate that they'll want to sign up for our credit card." The credit card ads are the worst I think.
Right now I only spend 13 hours in front of a computer a day, hope all these wearable computers come soon so I can totally avoid the real world, as opposed to partially.
USSR harmed its own citizen -- as well as US and almost every country in the world. However I talk about using military force to do that, what was claimed in a previous post.
Granted, the USSR was a lot more subtle than the US, but it used basically the same methods during the cold war. It provided weapons and training to it's allies, and in some cases (the ones mentioned by other posters) direct military action. This is basically what the US did; use it's prodigious manufacturing capability along with technological expertise to strengthen allied countries, usually without direct military support.
Slashdot Mirror
Every dictionary I can access at the moment has as one of the definitions sexual difference, AS PRIMARILY APPLIED TO CULTURAL DEFINITION. Sex refers to biological function. It's a useful term, especially in discussing roles of men and women because of the cultural component of the word.
First of all, of course the word gender can be applied to people; I don't know where everyone got the mistaken impression that doing so is grammatically incorrect. In it's academic sense it usually refers to a social construction rather than a biological one (some cultures will, in certain circumstances, assign male roles to females or female roles to males), but in this instance that's kind of irrelevant; in the US sex and culturally defined gender are almost always the same.
Secondly, I think a lot of the gender bias outcry began when computer science became recognized as an important field, as computers became more and more a part of daily life. How many articles do you see claiming men are driven away from the humanities? It all comes down to a value judgement, where certain disciplines are considered more important than others. The article "Why Are There So Few Female Computer Scientists?" reiterates this point by mentioning early gender stereotyping involving toys, where girls are encouraged to play with dolls while boys are encouraged to play with toy cars. Both are discouraged from playing with the other's toys; why does this automatically disadvantage girls but not boys? Why are toy cars better than dolls? Why is computer science better than English? A lot of the argument seems to come down to economics, in that computer science is more lucrative, but personally I find that a contemptible way to base an ethical system on.
The fact is women are more likely to go to college than men. They're more likely to get higher grades than men when they get there. Yes, there's a gender bias in the sciences, and yes, corrections should be made, but putting it all in terms of victims vs. victimizers just oversimplifies the problem.
Hey, if it's a grass roots movement then there's one thing it's missing: folk songs. I'm leaning towards "Come gather round children, and hear what I say, of Bill Gates' brave stand against the cruel DOJ". Need something that rhymes with "innovate" though, and ideas?
Looks like it.
You mean it's actually possible to distribute "data" through the "Net"? That's so crazy it just might work!
...it'll be one billion times better then the horrible hockey puck.
Alright, isn't that a slight exaggeration? I mean, it's not THAT bad; you get used to the shape pretty fast. Though I will admit another button would be handy, yesterday I actually instinctively tries to right click on a link in netscape...
Sometimes i feel really inferior compared to the males, it's almost as if they treat my like i'm stupid because i'm a girl... though i try harder then most of them to learn things...
That's probably also due to the nature of the geek world itself. Most link self-esteem to technical knowledge, and sometimes the easiest way to elevate yourself is to belittle someone else.
I think DVDs would probably fall under the movie category, though the article was a little vague. Maybe someone more legally minded could tell us why. Anyway, I don't know if the movie companies have been pulling the same kind of stuff as the record companies. I think we tend to sort of lump the whole corporate world into one big evil pile, but there are different levels of nastiness, and from what I've heard the record companies can be particularly vile.
Hey, plaid is always in style. Kind of like O'Reilly t-shirts.
I think he's just gloating.
I'm starting to get a little suspicious of the claims that there's this massive shortage in IT. It's odd, but it seems that while some people get a couple of offers a day, a sizeable chunk of the IT population has to really work at it. I get the feeling that recruiters tend to only look at certain parameters, and if you're not in them they don't even bother.
Gopher pages tend to be more content-rich than web pages -- Gopher simply does not allow Zero-Content sludge.
That deserves to be moderated up; whatever it's limitations, Gopher was just about always pure information. I kind of miss it.
The whole ASP/distributed computing thing still hasn't taken off, even though it's been hyped for years; I still don't understand why everyone's so desperate for it. And as for MS's ".Net" (hey, can -I- copyright a TLD too?), I'd be impressed if even their marketing department could get it off the ground.
Don't forget the drawn out ahhhhhHhHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh when you fell off the ledge...
You mean it's not?!
Please don't do that, brought back some very strong flashbacks of very, very long afternoons spent huddled around a dice and source-book laden table...
The whole premise though is that I would be buying the exact same computer anyway. Of course it doesn't add up if you're just doing it for the rebate, but my point was I was buying a computer and I'd need internet access. If say earthlink (which I have now) or a decent ISP was offering the rebate, I'd have gone for it, and it would have made perfect economic sense.
I have to admit, I can't really muster too much sympathy here. I mean, how can you spend your life in the US without learning how to spot deals like this? When I was buying a PC, I was seriously considering going for one of the rebate deals; I was going to have to buy internet access anyway, so in the long run it probably would have paid off. Around 800 dollar for the three year plan, minus 400 for the rebate, equals about 400 for 3 years of internet access, or a little over 10 dollars a month. I'd eventually get DSL, but I'd want a dial-up ISP for travelling anyway. Only reason I didn't go with it is the ISPs that offer it kind of suck. Other than that I don't really see the problem with it.
You know, I'm not anti-technology, but even I recognize there's a line that shouldn't really be crossed. I think this crosses it. Why on earth do you need access in your car? Access from home and work and cell phone isn't enough? Is it that bad that you might spend an hour or so a day without constant net access? OH NO I'M NOT RECEIVING TCP PACKETS IN SOME FORM, THE PAIN! gah.
IANAAE, but it doesn't sound that hard to put a satellite into orbit around the moon. Looks like they're on NASA time though ("we've planned to implement a committee to investigate the possibility of launching a craft 30 years from now"), but it's nice to see some other countries moving towards space. It all comes down to resources I guess; just about every country now has access to more advanced technology than the US had back in the 60's, but most can't muster the resources needed to get into space.
Well maybe in America we weren't that aware of it, but I was referring to people in other countries, who were often quite aware who's boot was on their neck so to speak.
Didn't they fully map another species a few years ago? I forget if it was a planarium or some other simple animal, but I remember being really impressed because they actually knew what every single one of the genes expressed...
That is funny. Funny thing about pop up ads is how good they make banner ads look...I never really understood the philosophy behind them, it's "let's create as negative impression of our product as possible" and "if someone's browsing the web for news, logic seems to dictate that they'll want to sign up for our credit card." The credit card ads are the worst I think.
Right now I only spend 13 hours in front of a computer a day, hope all these wearable computers come soon so I can totally avoid the real world, as opposed to partially.
USSR harmed its own citizen -- as well as US and almost every country in the world. However I talk about using military force to do that, what was claimed in a previous post.
Granted, the USSR was a lot more subtle than the US, but it used basically the same methods during the cold war. It provided weapons and training to it's allies, and in some cases (the ones mentioned by other posters) direct military action. This is basically what the US did; use it's prodigious manufacturing capability along with technological expertise to strengthen allied countries, usually without direct military support.