It would be reasonable if I trusted the government -- and I use trust in the same sense as 'trusted host'.
Risks of Key escrow
1. government using keys to decrypt data of mine (or anyone's) for political reasons -- think it can't happen in the U.S.? The FBI has no issues with putting people in prison on trumped up or blatently false charges for political reasons, why not decrypt the data of people who they have political beefs with? Surely they can find *something* (even if it's just tax mistakes) to put you away for, at least temporarily.
2. use of key escrow to read data that *is* illegal, but is saving people's lives -- Remember, this is the same country that put japanese people in concentration camps two generations ago. I'll argue that it's better to keep the option of resistance open, in case it is needed
3. someone could steal the keys. we're talking the U.S. Gov't here. Their track record on computer security is worse than corporate america's -- and it's not like CA's is stellar!
Also, key escrow doesn't solve for the problem: Terrorists communicating in ways that intelligence agencies can't crack. There's no guarantee, short of world escrow, completely enforced (meaning that *every* time non-escrowed keys are used, everybody involved gets punished) that would keep terrorists from using non-escrowed keys. The chances of that happening are infintesimal, esspecially when technical issues are taken into account (i.e. stenography -- how can you enforce a all-keys-escrowed policy if you're not sure what's even encrypted). Even if that happened, that doesn't stop the more classic (and even more difficult to foil) strategies.
Risks (plenty) vs benefits (none, really, taking into account the difficulty of enforcement)
I only bike or ride my moped (110 miles per gallon, baby) right now -- and today was pretty windy and icky -- you can buy raingear specially made for biking or motorcycle riding (which works nicely on a moped) and I hear you europeans have better moped options than us merkins (I have two vespa bravos, both from 1980, that I bought from an individual -- it's very difficult to find dealers and harder to find a place to work on them, but moped maintainace is a very geek thing anyway )
I dunno..junkscience.com denies that there are insect genes spliced into genetically modified food (untrue -- it also makes the same claim for animal genes, which may be true), that american beef cannot have mad cow disease and that silicon breast implants have never caused disease.
> But I can't see how it would be illegal under
> the laws as I understand them.
IANAL, either, but the issue isn't whether they are illegal under a given law (as that law has been passed and they are clearly illegal under that law) but whether that law is constitutional in the first place.
1. I have genetic weaknesses, I'd like to hide them from anyone who would deny me medical care (not insurance, *care*) or deny me the ability to have children (and possibly pass on said weaknesses)
2. I'm related to someone genetically who I'm not related to legally. Everyone involved would like to keep it that way. It's not the business of anyone we don't tell.
3. We have no history of rounding up people on spurious grounds (such as race) and warehousing them. So I shoudln't be worried, right? (would it be considered paranoid if a japanese-american in 1930 had thought they were in danger of being shipped off to an american concentration camp? Consider this before telling me I"m paranoid)
I've been known to wear conservative dresses
I've been known to wear slacks and collered shirts.
I've also been known to wear shirt and tie.
Consider what the company dress code is, look at what management is wearing, generally dressing as well or a bit better than management is good practice for the interview.
heh. The best story along these lines that I know of came from alt.pagan several years ago (back when I actually read it, before nntp had such a low signal-to-noise ratio)
So some JW/mormon/whatever came by the door as the posters' family was getting ready for some circle (I don't recall if it was Esbat or a Sabbat or what, but whatever, doesn't really matter) and their teenaged daughter opened the door (which opened into the currently-set-up living room), greeted the prolystizers and then shouted "mom! dad! the sacrifices are here!"
Re:We need more writers like Julian Assange
on
Underground Surfaces
·
· Score: 1
> just aren't cut out for women?
You need to read a book called _Gender_Shock_
and I suspect we're being trolled here (but someone modded this up! so..)
All of those so called 'differences' (strength, spatial perception, etc) with the exception of those specifically linked to reproduction (which not all humans can do anyway) have larger differences *within* a sex than between the sexes. All of them are averages -- my girlfriend is stronger than the vast majority of men -- she's spent most of her career as a tile setter, plumber, gas line runner and cable person (climbing *up* those big poles, mind!). So while more men might be suited to any of these professions than women, she is certainly more suited than most men.
This point can be argued for every atribute and activity *except* child bearing/egg fertilization.
> When was the last time that you heard a man
> complain when somebody said that he should not
> stay at home with the children and cook and
> clean?
Go find a stay-at-home fathers' support group. There's plenty on the net. I've heard much complaint (I generally don't believe that people of either gender are 'whining' when they make such complaints, as in my experience they are both founded and *very* frustrating) from them. As it should be. Men can and should be able to be their children's primary caretaker if they wish.
*You* on the otherhand, are whining. Not all women want to be your good little wife, working in the kitchen, barefoot and pregant. Not all men want to be their family's breadwinner, working their asses off to support their wife and 2.5 kids. Get over it.
Re:How I keep my Geek License
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
geeze, if I ever had a GF who would steal Brief History, I don't think I'd let her go!
Re:Other proven uses of post-paid envelopes and ca
on
Spammer Gets Spammed
·
· Score: 1
(you don't have an email address posted, otherwise I would have sent this via email, 'cos it is quite offtopic)
> What we did was go to all the libraries and
> workplaces we could, gather all the postage-paid
> subscription cards, and write various different
> economic messages, asking the magazines and
> software companies to use recycled paper for
> some of their material. For software companies,
> it was the manuals; for magazines it was just
> the insert cards (paper plants to produce
> clay-content magazine picture quality paper did
> not exist in North America at the time).
I am all sorts of impressed. That's a really good idea. Damn, I wish I'd seen your slashdot posts when I actually lived in seattle last year, you sound (from a number of your posts) like you'd be a really fascinating person to meet irl (I'm not saying this in a stalking sense, honest! I'm really quite harmless)
I dunno. If you work for McDonalds you work for a company that causes major environmental damage and is implecated in the slaughter of billions of cattle, not to mention heart disease, etc
And telemarketing pays more.
I figure the best option is just to tell them that they need to remove me from their list and that I never buy anything over the phone. That way I get bothered less and I don't waste any of their time.
Actually, the fucked up thing is that nuclear 'waste' from nuclear power plants isn't necessary. It's merely that using the last bit of that
radioactivity is more expensive and cuts into profit margins, so they don't.
There is a very cool nuclear plant in arkansas that 'burns' that last bit out, and the waste isn't much more radioactive than background.
Personally I think the problem is that when you do nuclear (and just about everything else, but it *really matters* with nuclear) power for profit, profit becomes more important than safety (of humans, of the environment, etc)
And also, your point about uranium isn't particularly good. The uranium (as used) is refined, so that it's more concentrated (radioactively) than uranium as found in the earth. We aren't reburying the same stuff we found. It's like arguing that because there are trace minerals in most freshwater sources, it's a good idea to dump a ton of lime a day into your closest river.
> Wow. Excellent reply. Far better than run of the
> mill Slashdot fare.
Thanks. I try hard to remember that I've been arguing on-line for about nine years (since I was thirteen:) ) and nine years ago I sounded as bad as a lot of the people here. Debate is a learned skill, ask any debate coach:)
> since the
> basic discussion here has centered around what
> does and does not constitute a "right", it's not
> a good term to throw around loosely.
Agreed. I forgot vinnie rule #1 (think, then type, not the other way around;P ). Bad sysadmin, no root prompt.
> It seems like, at the very basic level, you are
> fighting against human xenophobia and stupidity.
Well, I'm not sure stupidity is exactly the right idea here -- very 'stupid' people (the mentally retarded) are often the *least* prejudiced people. Very inexperienced people (young children) generally also lack prejudice (of the sexual and racial kind -- they are very prejudiced towards their families and people they know, but in a young child this is probably good for survival) except that they've been taught (generally by their parents, but also from TV and the few societal influences they've been likely to encounter). There was a time, when resources were much scarcer (while there is still resource scarcity, there is definetly enough *resources* for all people to eat, which thousands of years ago was not the case) that choosing your family or group or tribe over others was *vital* to your family's survival (and therefore your genes..ultimately we are still DNA's way of making more DNA, whatever we wish to think:) ) and ultimately this became codified into our societies (from Sumer on down the line). In it's more extreme manifestations it leads to situations like that between protestants and catholics in Ireland.
At one point all of this was necessary for survival, but I think (and can argue) that these attitudes are counter-productive (and somewhat counter survival, but probably not enough to darwin them out) and therefore should change for the benefit of all people.
> it's going to make them almost impossible to
> fight against.
Well, if you look at history, there is progress being made. To look at the United States (which is, honestly, the only place I can intelligently discuss right now. I keep meaning to learn more about world politics, but time/energy/yeah, I'm sure you know the excuses here), before the 1860s, it was considered okay to keep humans as slaves because they were another color (and during colonial days slavery of whites was allowed, though the politics around this is very different than that of black slavery in the U.S. [and I should note that I'm using politics in the sense of the way humans organize power -- in the 'office politics' sense, rather than necessarily in the government sense, though the former does encompass the latter), later that century black people were given the right to vote, in the 1920s women finally got the right to vote, civil rights movement made great advances in the 1960s (certainly, racism et al still exist today, that's what started this conversation, but it's definetly *less* than what it was in the 20s or 50s) and the women's rights movement in the 70s also made advances (again, sexism exists still, but not to the same extent). This history gives me hope that with continued work, education, activism, etc that someday (maybe generations from now) it *won't* exist.
Even if I'm wrong about this, there's a great essay about racism (written in the late fifties, I think) that argues that racism will never die, that black people will never be considered equal to rights, however, the author argues that that doesn't release anyone with a conscience from the duty of fighting racism anyway, because it's far better to go down fighting than to live on one's knees.
> I'd argue that these persons do not provide an
> accurate representation of white males,
They aren't meant to represent white males -- in fact, white males certainly *don't* have monopoly on thinking that a female will not know about cars or computers (or any other sexist behavior). Nor is that behavior 'better' when other women or people of color engage in it. What males (in this case color doesn't matter so much, from my view, though someone who is clearly of color might disagree with me) have a monopoly on is assumed competance -- by males and females (and others).
Your thought experiment has merit, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about.
Two friends (male and female) walk into a car/computer store. They go to the counter, and the counter person greets them, looking at the male, and asks him what he wants. The female pipes up with her list, and the counter person puts it on the counter and asks the guy if that will be it, the girl says yes, the counter person finally gets the clue and asks the girl if that will be cash or credit.
This is such a normal occurance in my life that mostly I just shine it, though occasionally I'll throw in a smart ass comment on my way out about computers/cars not requiring penises...
Another occurance that used to be common (when I worked as a PC tech at computer stores) customer comes in (normally male, though males *are* overrepresented in the set of 'customers likely to talk to the PC tech' so that may just be a statistical artifact) and when he discovers that a *girl* is working on his computer (or has been sent out to answer his questions) he asks 'Can you please get a real tech?' (best answer, "I am a real tech" and if that doesn't work I'd employ a technical I used to call 'beating them over the head with technical terms' -- you can probably guess what it entails -- in some techs this is normal behavior, but I generally try to go out of my way to make sure that non-technical people understand what I'm saying, I consider the former to be not nice behavior, though sometimes justified)
Similar things used to happen when I worked tech support (I'm now a sysadmin, and while I get an occasional surprised coworker I haven't had to deal with customers in a while)
> you might have a case to argue that that
> individual is sexist.
I think I do here, but more, I think that it shows a pattern of 'normalized' sexism. We aren't talking one or two or three cases here, we're talking onces every two or three days, for *years*, in the case of the work related ones. In the case of the store incidents, I generally frequent the same computer stores once I find the ones I like, so they tend to clue on to me pretty quick (though my experience has been that they clue to *me* not *women*).
Discussions with my female friends have shown similar patterns (my favorite is my best friend, who is, if possible, louder than I am, who has a very clearly female name, yet sales clerks, wait people, etc are *consistantly* returning her credit card to her husband -- occasionally (and I have witnessed this) when he says 'This isn't my card' the wait person will say 'but I'm sure that this is your check' -- while my friend is sitting right there! Valets also hand her keys to him all the time. He says it's made him much more aware of daily discrimination women face (hmm..perhaps men should date at least one woman with more money than them at least once in their lifetimes:) ). Again, these problems aren't confined to males, females do all this stuff too. It's a societal thing.
> You've still got a long way to go to prove that
> white males control the power structure of the
> worldAs far as whether there is a power elite in
> America, I'm holding on to my romantic notion
> that there is not against all logical analysis.
> Please be careful about bursting my bubble. : )
Well, since that there is a power elite in America is an inseperable part of 'there is a power elite in America and it is almost exclusively white and male', I'm not sure how an effective argument could *not* burst your bubble.
That said, some obvious facts that support this are:
A. The U.S. Congress is still vastly white and male, though there are both women and people of color represented, they are underrepresented compared to the population of the U.S.
B. We have never had a non-white, non-male president
C. The majority of the supreme court justices are white and male
(thus, the three major branches of our government are very largely white and male)
D. Nearly all of the heads of large companies are white and male
E. the last Forbes 'top ten richest people in america' list I saw was all white, and while there were three women on it, all three were from the same family and had inherited their money (the walton family, that started walmart, as I recall)
F. The heads of major news outlets are nearly all white and male (possibly all, I don't know of anyone who is not, but it's possible there is some member of the board I don't know about, so I'll hedge here)
As I said before, just because you are white and male does not mean you are likely to be a person in power, but if you are a person in power, odds are overwhelmingly that you are white and male.
> If you proceed from the assumption that white
> males are going to treat you (a woman)
> differently than they would treat a man, you are
> engaging in exactly the sort of behaviour you're
> arguing against.
Agreed. And I don't proceed from that assumption, but I also don't ignore that behavior when it happens (regardless of the person's race or sex).
> 1) You're a radical lesbian feminist, so you
> have the right to speak on the subject. OK, so
> all us non-radical, non-lesbian, non-"feminist"
> (although I may classify myself as a feminist,
> depending on how you define the term) people,
> especially white males (like me), better shut
> the hell up and listen to their betters?
> Uhh...no.
That's not what I said.
I'm using 'right' as in 'something to which one has a just claim'. I don't consider people who say they aren't feminist *and* have no real clue what feminism is about (in any of it's permutations) to have much right to speak of it and be believed or taken seriously, in the same sense I consider the loweliest script kiddie who runs a linux box at home to have more right to speak of linux than a well-qualified (on paper) 'computer expert' who has never touched linux and only knows about it from MS and other anti-linux sources.
Case in point: I went to the local small computer shop today, and the guy behind the counter told me he doesn't run linux because 'it only runs on Intel motherboards and doesn't support sound' -- if you know anything about linux, you know that's wrong. By the same token, there is an unfortunetly common belief that feminism (especially radical feminism) requires that one hate men (as opposed to challenging patriarchy -- the two are vastly different, and hating men not only is not helpful, it's counter productive) -- recently a young woman who told me that she was anti-feminist also told me that she felt that feminism's main message was that if one didn't hate men one was a 'disgrace to your vagina' -- if you know anything about feminism you know that this is not an accurate portrayal of feminist theory or philosophy.
Perhaps I should have used 'expertise' -- if you like, s/right/expertise there. I don't do semantics arguments.
> 2) There is something wrong with the CONCEPT of
> a white male? a) What is the concept of a white
> male?
The concept of 'white male' requires two concepts, race and sex.
Race is the concept that there are different groups of people that can be separated on the basis of their skin color. Racism is the concept that various values of a human being (their fitness or non-fitness for various things) can be judged by their race.
Sex is that concept that there are two (in some cultures more, but in the U.S. only two) groups of people, separated by certain apparent characteristics -- usually considered to be genetilia (not chromosomes -- how many people do you know have actually had a chromosome check?) and some secondary characteristics -- breasts or lack thereof, facial hair, etc. Sexism is the concept that a person's fitness for various things can be judged from their sex.
It's commonly argued that race is a 'real' thing -- while I"ll grant that both heritage and skin color are actual realities, race in this country is a social construct. This can most readily be seen in the fact that the definition of who is 'white' has changed over the past 200 years (i.e. Irish in the 1800s in most parts of the country were not considered to be white -- italians and jewish people of european origin have also not be considered white at various points) and the fact that skin color often seems to have little to do with it. My skin is lighter than that of most 'white' people, yet I am not white because my grandmother was japanese (I also have two great-great-greats that were native american, one sioux and one cherokee, but it's likely that if I did not have a japanese grandmother I would be considered white). Why is race important then, if it's so amorphous? Because it's used to decide *who* has privilege (see racism) and by privilege I don't mean who gets a limo or lots of money -- I mean who doesn't get pulled over because they don't 'look' like they should own that nice car, who is seen as a threat when they walk into a convenience store late at night, who is likely to be stopped because they don't 'belong' in this neighborhood, who gets service in a store vs who gets ignored because they don't 'look' like they'll have money, who gets loans vs who doesn't. There are tons of studies showing that all other things (income, dress, etc) being equal, people of color are still *much* more likely to deal with the above than white people. If you don't deal with these things, than you're not likely to realize that *not* dealing with them, in this society, *is* a privilege.
Sex is similar, though a bit more problematic, because there *is* actual difference between males and females, and the vast majority of people biologically only fit into one group or the other. Those who aren't born with clearly male or clearly female genetilia are generally surgically altered/mutilated at very young ages to conform to societies expectations (usually 'into' females because it's a technically easier task to 'construct' female-looking genetilia than male-looking genetilia) (Incidently a good book along these lines is _Gender_Shock_). So while biological sex is 'more' real than race, it's still not the 100% that the societally constructed concept of sex is (don't believe me? I genderbend on a regular basis. It amazes me how strong the impulse in people to assign a sex to someone is.
Again, sex is important because (and, outside of mating behavior, *only* because) it strongly affects how people are treated by other people -- who is considered techinically competant, who is considered to be 'easy prey' for rapists, muggers, etc (not that men never are raped or otherwise violently attacked - but both happen significantly more often to women), who is considered to be authority (ever had your computer componants or car parts or furniture automatically given to a male companion? Had it happen so regularly that you're shocked when someone actually gives it to you? Ever had anyone assume that you didn't know anything about your car/computer/tools/exercise equiptment because you were male? All this is privilege as well), how much you make (see http://news.excite.com/news/zd/010116/16/it-pay-wo men), whether HR is afraid you'll bug when you get married, etc.
So the concept of white male, in our society, is the person with 'default' privilege -- you will reliably be represented in media and in society (this analysis does not include class, sexual orientation and a number of other attributes which are similar to race and sex in that they are used to discriminate).
> b) Why is it a problem?
because the concepts exist to exclude and discriminate against groups of people, as groups.
> If there's a ruling elite in america,
Are you saying there is not?
> it is
> neither identically nor exclusively the domain
> of white males.
Up until a generation ago you'd be wrong. Now there are a number of 'token' women and people of color in some positions, however, the vast majority of those in power are still white males.
That said, ruling white males are a very small subset of all white males -- as I said, the problems were not caused by every individual white male, however, every white person benefits from white privilege (and some of us who are not white but pass for it as well) and every male benefits from male privilege (regardless of color) and white males benefit from both. Thus, white people, and males and especially white males are in positions to challenge this privilege, but often don't -- mostly out of ignorance (often willful, but that's another post)
> Most of us white males have to muddle along on
> our own, without even the chic of radical
> lesbian feminism to help us make sense of our
> pathetic, misguided lives.
Most of us non-white males muddle through the same stuff, without the nifty bits of privilege, making it that much harder. While I find radical feminism to be useful in interpreting the world around me (as, say, quantum theory is useful in interpreting our universe) I would hardly call it chic. In some ways it's empowering, enabling me to see that there are patterns, that I'm not imagining the things I see, and that there are others who have come up with strategies for dealing with the inevitable problems that come up, as well as for 'fixing' the system -- in other ways it's depressing, because it would be nice if I were the only person who has had to fight some of the battles I have -- not for me, but for the rest of the world. 'Chic' is just not a word I'd use to describe it.
That said, I'm sure that, should you be politically minded, there are plenty of political ideas and philosphies that could help you make sense of your life. (Actually, radical feminism also holds that patriarchy harms men, though not really in teh same ways that Promise keepers thinks)
>Fine by me. Though it'd be nice if the
> environmentalists,
if you haven't noticed, the majority of environmental activists are white males, so I find it highly suspect that they are blaming you, because you are a white male.
> racist race warlords (self-appointed "civil
> rights leaders"),
I sincerely hope that you aren't trying to imply that all civil rights leaders are racist race warlords (there are a very few who are of color, there are a hell of a lot more who are white males) -- for the non-racists race warlord civil rights activists, please see feminism
>and feminists stopped blaming the troubles of
>the world on me just cause I happen to be a
> white male. Hey, I didn't ask to be.
Cluephone here -- (and I'm a radical lesbian feminist, so I think I have some right to speak on this subject) -- no one is saying, you, Dannon, are the cause of all evils because you are a white male. The *concept* of white male -- the whole societal philosophy that allows the concept of "white male" to exist (and no, neither feminists nor racial minorities invented the concept) is the problem. And I know you didn't ask to be, I didn't particularly ask to be a mixed race dyke myself...it just happens (in the most literal of senses) -- that said, there's no escaping that you benefit from the privileges accorded to white males in this society, as I benefit from the privileges accorded to white women in this society when I pass for white (which is fairly often, I'll admit -- not entirely by choice)
Certainly, the societal framework that feminism (and civil rights movements) works against is generations old -- no one living now had any say in it's beginning, but we all have a little say in it's demise.
Re:Another alternative to Gore-Tex?
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
oops. sorry. that was a language mistake -- to be clearer, my experience with goretex is that it's a bit like walking around in my own personal sauna -- not quite as bad as most waterproof things, but it could stand a bit of improvement...
Re:Another alternative to Gore-Tex?
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
So's gore-tex -- it's advertised to allow sweat out but not let rain in...
it's pretty good at the latter, in my experience...not so good at the former...
oh, wait, that's 'cos my mom's japanese, not because I had the misfortune to be raised in virginia..never mind
(of course, if you southerners would get over your culturally ingrained habits, you'd realize that kudzu is good and a good source of fiber [for paper, I mean -- and supposedly you can spin it..haven't tried that yet, though] and it would cease being [such] a pest plant)
actually, as I understand it pearl harbor was *not* a surprise to the intelligence community -- it was just decided not to announce it so that the average american would be happier to get into WWII (in other words, it was a political decision)
granted, I only have the word of a few intelligence folks whom I know socially to go off of here
Slashdot Mirror
No, key escrow is not reasonable.
It would be reasonable if I trusted the government -- and I use trust in the same sense as 'trusted host'.
Risks of Key escrow
1. government using keys to decrypt data of mine (or anyone's) for political reasons -- think it can't happen in the U.S.? The FBI has no issues with putting people in prison on trumped up or blatently false charges for political reasons, why not decrypt the data of people who they have political beefs with? Surely they can find *something* (even if it's just tax mistakes) to put you away for, at least temporarily.
2. use of key escrow to read data that *is* illegal, but is saving people's lives -- Remember, this is the same country that put japanese people in concentration camps two generations ago. I'll argue that it's better to keep the option of resistance open, in case it is needed
3. someone could steal the keys. we're talking the U.S. Gov't here. Their track record on computer security is worse than corporate america's -- and it's not like CA's is stellar!
Also, key escrow doesn't solve for the problem: Terrorists communicating in ways that intelligence agencies can't crack. There's no guarantee, short of world escrow, completely enforced (meaning that *every* time non-escrowed keys are used, everybody involved gets punished) that would keep terrorists from using non-escrowed keys. The chances of that happening are infintesimal, esspecially when technical issues are taken into account (i.e. stenography -- how can you enforce a all-keys-escrowed policy if you're not sure what's even encrypted). Even if that happened, that doesn't stop the more classic (and even more difficult to foil) strategies.
Risks (plenty) vs benefits (none, really, taking into account the difficulty of enforcement)
Ha! I can show prior art (pictures of my father, a laser pointer and my cat, back when I was 15 -- 1993! )
ohmigod, that's a great idea
patent the blink tag, sue it off the face of the web
yes! we shall turn the evil forces of patent law to good!
um, or something
http://www.corbinmotors.com/sparrow.htm
looks electric only to me...
is it every day that it's that windy? bet not...
I only bike or ride my moped (110 miles per gallon, baby) right now -- and today was pretty windy and icky -- you can buy raingear specially made for biking or motorcycle riding (which works nicely on a moped) and I hear you europeans have better moped options than us merkins (I have two vespa bravos, both from 1980, that I bought from an individual -- it's very difficult to find dealers and harder to find a place to work on them, but moped maintainace is a very geek thing anyway )
and save your car for the occasional gale
I dunno..junkscience.com denies that there are insect genes spliced into genetically modified food (untrue -- it also makes the same claim for animal genes, which may be true), that american beef cannot have mad cow disease and that silicon breast implants have never caused disease.
Some skepticism is very much in order, I think.
> But I can't see how it would be illegal under
> the laws as I understand them.
IANAL, either, but the issue isn't whether they are illegal under a given law (as that law has been passed and they are clearly illegal under that law) but whether that law is constitutional in the first place.
What do I have to hide?
1. I have genetic weaknesses, I'd like to hide them from anyone who would deny me medical care (not insurance, *care*) or deny me the ability to have children (and possibly pass on said weaknesses)
2. I'm related to someone genetically who I'm not related to legally. Everyone involved would like to keep it that way. It's not the business of anyone we don't tell.
3. We have no history of rounding up people on spurious grounds (such as race) and warehousing them. So I shoudln't be worried, right? (would it be considered paranoid if a japanese-american in 1930 had thought they were in danger of being shipped off to an american concentration camp? Consider this before telling me I"m paranoid)
depends on the part of the country
I've been known to wear conservative dresses
I've been known to wear slacks and collered shirts.
I've also been known to wear shirt and tie.
Consider what the company dress code is, look at what management is wearing, generally dressing as well or a bit better than management is good practice for the interview.
heh. The best story along these lines that I know of came from alt.pagan several years ago (back when I actually read it, before nntp had such a low signal-to-noise ratio)
So some JW/mormon/whatever came by the door as the posters' family was getting ready for some circle (I don't recall if it was Esbat or a Sabbat or what, but whatever, doesn't really matter) and their teenaged daughter opened the door (which opened into the currently-set-up living room), greeted the prolystizers and then shouted "mom! dad! the sacrifices are here!"
> just aren't cut out for women?
You need to read a book called _Gender_Shock_
and I suspect we're being trolled here (but someone modded this up! so..)
All of those so called 'differences' (strength, spatial perception, etc) with the exception of those specifically linked to reproduction (which not all humans can do anyway) have larger differences *within* a sex than between the sexes. All of them are averages -- my girlfriend is stronger than the vast majority of men -- she's spent most of her career as a tile setter, plumber, gas line runner and cable person (climbing *up* those big poles, mind!). So while more men might be suited to any of these professions than women, she is certainly more suited than most men.
This point can be argued for every atribute and activity *except* child bearing/egg fertilization.
> When was the last time that you heard a man
> complain when somebody said that he should not
> stay at home with the children and cook and
> clean?
Go find a stay-at-home fathers' support group. There's plenty on the net. I've heard much complaint (I generally don't believe that people of either gender are 'whining' when they make such complaints, as in my experience they are both founded and *very* frustrating) from them. As it should be. Men can and should be able to be their children's primary caretaker if they wish.
*You* on the otherhand, are whining. Not all women want to be your good little wife, working in the kitchen, barefoot and pregant. Not all men want to be their family's breadwinner, working their asses off to support their wife and 2.5 kids. Get over it.
geeze, if I ever had a GF who would steal Brief History, I don't think I'd let her go!
(you don't have an email address posted, otherwise I would have sent this via email, 'cos it is quite offtopic)
> What we did was go to all the libraries and
> workplaces we could, gather all the postage-paid
> subscription cards, and write various different
> economic messages, asking the magazines and
> software companies to use recycled paper for
> some of their material. For software companies,
> it was the manuals; for magazines it was just
> the insert cards (paper plants to produce
> clay-content magazine picture quality paper did
> not exist in North America at the time).
I am all sorts of impressed. That's a really good idea. Damn, I wish I'd seen your slashdot posts when I actually lived in seattle last year, you sound (from a number of your posts) like you'd be a really fascinating person to meet irl (I'm not saying this in a stalking sense, honest! I'm really quite harmless)
I dunno. If you work for McDonalds you work for a company that causes major environmental damage and is implecated in the slaughter of billions of cattle, not to mention heart disease, etc
And telemarketing pays more.
I figure the best option is just to tell them that they need to remove me from their list and that I never buy anything over the phone. That way I get bothered less and I don't waste any of their time.
That's just me, though.
Actually, the fucked up thing is that nuclear 'waste' from nuclear power plants isn't necessary. It's merely that using the last bit of that
radioactivity is more expensive and cuts into profit margins, so they don't.
There is a very cool nuclear plant in arkansas that 'burns' that last bit out, and the waste isn't much more radioactive than background.
Personally I think the problem is that when you do nuclear (and just about everything else, but it *really matters* with nuclear) power for profit, profit becomes more important than safety (of humans, of the environment, etc)
And also, your point about uranium isn't particularly good. The uranium (as used) is refined, so that it's more concentrated (radioactively) than uranium as found in the earth. We aren't reburying the same stuff we found. It's like arguing that because there are trace minerals in most freshwater sources, it's a good idea to dump a ton of lime a day into your closest river.
> Wow. Excellent reply. Far better than run of the
:) ) and nine years ago I sounded as bad as a lot of the people here. Debate is a learned skill, ask any debate coach :)
;P ). Bad sysadmin, no root prompt.
:) ) and ultimately this became codified into our societies (from Sumer on down the line). In it's more extreme manifestations it leads to situations like that between protestants and catholics in Ireland.
:) ). Again, these problems aren't confined to males, females do all this stuff too. It's a societal thing.
> mill Slashdot fare.
Thanks. I try hard to remember that I've been arguing on-line for about nine years (since I was thirteen
> since the
> basic discussion here has centered around what
> does and does not constitute a "right", it's not
> a good term to throw around loosely.
Agreed. I forgot vinnie rule #1 (think, then type, not the other way around
> It seems like, at the very basic level, you are
> fighting against human xenophobia and stupidity.
Well, I'm not sure stupidity is exactly the right idea here -- very 'stupid' people (the mentally retarded) are often the *least* prejudiced people. Very inexperienced people (young children) generally also lack prejudice (of the sexual and racial kind -- they are very prejudiced towards their families and people they know, but in a young child this is probably good for survival) except that they've been taught (generally by their parents, but also from TV and the few societal influences they've been likely to encounter). There was a time, when resources were much scarcer (while there is still resource scarcity, there is definetly enough *resources* for all people to eat, which thousands of years ago was not the case) that choosing your family or group or tribe over others was *vital* to your family's survival (and therefore your genes..ultimately we are still DNA's way of making more DNA, whatever we wish to think
At one point all of this was necessary for survival, but I think (and can argue) that these attitudes are counter-productive (and somewhat counter survival, but probably not enough to darwin them out) and therefore should change for the benefit of all people.
> it's going to make them almost impossible to
> fight against.
Well, if you look at history, there is progress being made. To look at the United States (which is, honestly, the only place I can intelligently discuss right now. I keep meaning to learn more about world politics, but time/energy/yeah, I'm sure you know the excuses here), before the 1860s, it was considered okay to keep humans as slaves because they were another color (and during colonial days slavery of whites was allowed, though the politics around this is very different than that of black slavery in the U.S. [and I should note that I'm using politics in the sense of the way humans organize power -- in the 'office politics' sense, rather than necessarily in the government sense, though the former does encompass the latter), later that century black people were given the right to vote, in the 1920s women finally got the right to vote, civil rights movement made great advances in the 1960s (certainly, racism et al still exist today, that's what started this conversation, but it's definetly *less* than what it was in the 20s or 50s) and the women's rights movement in the 70s also made advances (again, sexism exists still, but not to the same extent). This history gives me hope that with continued work, education, activism, etc that someday (maybe generations from now) it *won't* exist.
Even if I'm wrong about this, there's a great essay about racism (written in the late fifties, I think) that argues that racism will never die, that black people will never be considered equal to rights, however, the author argues that that doesn't release anyone with a conscience from the duty of fighting racism anyway, because it's far better to go down fighting than to live on one's knees.
> I'd argue that these persons do not provide an
> accurate representation of white males,
They aren't meant to represent white males -- in fact, white males certainly *don't* have monopoly on thinking that a female will not know about cars or computers (or any other sexist behavior). Nor is that behavior 'better' when other women or people of color engage in it. What males (in this case color doesn't matter so much, from my view, though someone who is clearly of color might disagree with me) have a monopoly on is assumed competance -- by males and females (and others).
Your thought experiment has merit, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about.
Two friends (male and female) walk into a car/computer store. They go to the counter, and the counter person greets them, looking at the male, and asks him what he wants. The female pipes up with her list, and the counter person puts it on the counter and asks the guy if that will be it, the girl says yes, the counter person finally gets the clue and asks the girl if that will be cash or credit.
This is such a normal occurance in my life that mostly I just shine it, though occasionally I'll throw in a smart ass comment on my way out about computers/cars not requiring penises...
Another occurance that used to be common (when I worked as a PC tech at computer stores) customer comes in (normally male, though males *are* overrepresented in the set of 'customers likely to talk to the PC tech' so that may just be a statistical artifact) and when he discovers that a *girl* is working on his computer (or has been sent out to answer his questions) he asks 'Can you please get a real tech?' (best answer, "I am a real tech" and if that doesn't work I'd employ a technical I used to call 'beating them over the head with technical terms' -- you can probably guess what it entails -- in some techs this is normal behavior, but I generally try to go out of my way to make sure that non-technical people understand what I'm saying, I consider the former to be not nice behavior, though sometimes justified)
Similar things used to happen when I worked tech support (I'm now a sysadmin, and while I get an occasional surprised coworker I haven't had to deal with customers in a while)
> you might have a case to argue that that
> individual is sexist.
I think I do here, but more, I think that it shows a pattern of 'normalized' sexism. We aren't talking one or two or three cases here, we're talking onces every two or three days, for *years*, in the case of the work related ones. In the case of the store incidents, I generally frequent the same computer stores once I find the ones I like, so they tend to clue on to me pretty quick (though my experience has been that they clue to *me* not *women*).
Discussions with my female friends have shown similar patterns (my favorite is my best friend, who is, if possible, louder than I am, who has a very clearly female name, yet sales clerks, wait people, etc are *consistantly* returning her credit card to her husband -- occasionally (and I have witnessed this) when he says 'This isn't my card' the wait person will say 'but I'm sure that this is your check' -- while my friend is sitting right there! Valets also hand her keys to him all the time. He says it's made him much more aware of daily discrimination women face (hmm..perhaps men should date at least one woman with more money than them at least once in their lifetimes
> You've still got a long way to go to prove that
> white males control the power structure of the
> worldAs far as whether there is a power elite in
> America, I'm holding on to my romantic notion
> that there is not against all logical analysis.
> Please be careful about bursting my bubble. : )
Well, since that there is a power elite in America is an inseperable part of 'there is a power elite in America and it is almost exclusively white and male', I'm not sure how an effective argument could *not* burst your bubble.
That said, some obvious facts that support this are:
A. The U.S. Congress is still vastly white and male, though there are both women and people of color represented, they are underrepresented compared to the population of the U.S.
B. We have never had a non-white, non-male president
C. The majority of the supreme court justices are white and male
(thus, the three major branches of our government are very largely white and male)
D. Nearly all of the heads of large companies are white and male
E. the last Forbes 'top ten richest people in america' list I saw was all white, and while there were three women on it, all three were from the same family and had inherited their money (the walton family, that started walmart, as I recall)
F. The heads of major news outlets are nearly all white and male (possibly all, I don't know of anyone who is not, but it's possible there is some member of the board I don't know about, so I'll hedge here)
As I said before, just because you are white and male does not mean you are likely to be a person in power, but if you are a person in power, odds are overwhelmingly that you are white and male.
> If you proceed from the assumption that white
> males are going to treat you (a woman)
> differently than they would treat a man, you are
> engaging in exactly the sort of behaviour you're
> arguing against.
Agreed. And I don't proceed from that assumption, but I also don't ignore that behavior when it happens (regardless of the person's race or sex).
> 1) You're a radical lesbian feminist, so you
> have the right to speak on the subject. OK, so
> all us non-radical, non-lesbian, non-"feminist"
> (although I may classify myself as a feminist,
> depending on how you define the term) people,
> especially white males (like me), better shut
> the hell up and listen to their betters?
> Uhh...no.
That's not what I said.
I'm using 'right' as in 'something to which one has a just claim'. I don't consider people who say they aren't feminist *and* have no real clue what feminism is about (in any of it's permutations) to have much right to speak of it and be believed or taken seriously, in the same sense I consider the loweliest script kiddie who runs a linux box at home to have more right to speak of linux than a well-qualified (on paper) 'computer expert' who has never touched linux and only knows about it from MS and other anti-linux sources.
Case in point: I went to the local small computer shop today, and the guy behind the counter told me he doesn't run linux because 'it only runs on Intel motherboards and doesn't support sound' -- if you know anything about linux, you know that's wrong. By the same token, there is an unfortunetly common belief that feminism (especially radical feminism) requires that one hate men (as opposed to challenging patriarchy -- the two are vastly different, and hating men not only is not helpful, it's counter productive) -- recently a young woman who told me that she was anti-feminist also told me that she felt that feminism's main message was that if one didn't hate men one was a 'disgrace to your vagina' -- if you know anything about feminism you know that this is not an accurate portrayal of feminist theory or philosophy.
Perhaps I should have used 'expertise' -- if you like, s/right/expertise there. I don't do semantics arguments.
> 2) There is something wrong with the CONCEPT of
> a white male? a) What is the concept of a white
> male?
The concept of 'white male' requires two concepts, race and sex.
Race is the concept that there are different groups of people that can be separated on the basis of their skin color. Racism is the concept that various values of a human being (their fitness or non-fitness for various things) can be judged by their race.
Sex is that concept that there are two (in some cultures more, but in the U.S. only two) groups of people, separated by certain apparent characteristics -- usually considered to be genetilia (not chromosomes -- how many people do you know have actually had a chromosome check?) and some secondary characteristics -- breasts or lack thereof, facial hair, etc. Sexism is the concept that a person's fitness for various things can be judged from their sex.
It's commonly argued that race is a 'real' thing -- while I"ll grant that both heritage and skin color are actual realities, race in this country is a social construct. This can most readily be seen in the fact that the definition of who is 'white' has changed over the past 200 years (i.e. Irish in the 1800s in most parts of the country were not considered to be white -- italians and jewish people of european origin have also not be considered white at various points) and the fact that skin color often seems to have little to do with it. My skin is lighter than that of most 'white' people, yet I am not white because my grandmother was japanese (I also have two great-great-greats that were native american, one sioux and one cherokee, but it's likely that if I did not have a japanese grandmother I would be considered white). Why is race important then, if it's so amorphous? Because it's used to decide *who* has privilege (see racism) and by privilege I don't mean who gets a limo or lots of money -- I mean who doesn't get pulled over because they don't 'look' like they should own that nice car, who is seen as a threat when they walk into a convenience store late at night, who is likely to be stopped because they don't 'belong' in this neighborhood, who gets service in a store vs who gets ignored because they don't 'look' like they'll have money, who gets loans vs who doesn't. There are tons of studies showing that all other things (income, dress, etc) being equal, people of color are still *much* more likely to deal with the above than white people. If you don't deal with these things, than you're not likely to realize that *not* dealing with them, in this society, *is* a privilege.
Sex is similar, though a bit more problematic, because there *is* actual difference between males and females, and the vast majority of people biologically only fit into one group or the other. Those who aren't born with clearly male or clearly female genetilia are generally surgically altered/mutilated at very young ages to conform to societies expectations (usually 'into' females because it's a technically easier task to 'construct' female-looking genetilia than male-looking genetilia) (Incidently a good book along these lines is _Gender_Shock_). So while biological sex is 'more' real than race, it's still not the 100% that the societally constructed concept of sex is (don't believe me? I genderbend on a regular basis. It amazes me how strong the impulse in people to assign a sex to someone is.
Again, sex is important because (and, outside of mating behavior, *only* because) it strongly affects how people are treated by other people -- who is considered techinically competant, who is considered to be 'easy prey' for rapists, muggers, etc (not that men never are raped or otherwise violently attacked - but both happen significantly more often to women), who is considered to be authority (ever had your computer componants or car parts or furniture automatically given to a male companion? Had it happen so regularly that you're shocked when someone actually gives it to you? Ever had anyone assume that you didn't know anything about your car/computer/tools/exercise equiptment because you were male? All this is privilege as well), how much you make (see http://news.excite.com/news/zd/010116/16/it-pay-w
So the concept of white male, in our society, is the person with 'default' privilege -- you will reliably be represented in media and in society (this analysis does not include class, sexual orientation and a number of other attributes which are similar to race and sex in that they are used to discriminate).
> b) Why is it a problem?
because the concepts exist to exclude and discriminate against groups of people, as groups.
> If there's a ruling elite in america,
Are you saying there is not?
> it is
> neither identically nor exclusively the domain
> of white males.
Up until a generation ago you'd be wrong. Now there are a number of 'token' women and people of color in some positions, however, the vast majority of those in power are still white males.
That said, ruling white males are a very small subset of all white males -- as I said, the problems were not caused by every individual white male, however, every white person benefits from white privilege (and some of us who are not white but pass for it as well) and every male benefits from male privilege (regardless of color) and white males benefit from both. Thus, white people, and males and especially white males are in positions to challenge this privilege, but often don't -- mostly out of ignorance (often willful, but that's another post)
> Most of us white males have to muddle along on
> our own, without even the chic of radical
> lesbian feminism to help us make sense of our
> pathetic, misguided lives.
Most of us non-white males muddle through the same stuff, without the nifty bits of privilege, making it that much harder. While I find radical feminism to be useful in interpreting the world around me (as, say, quantum theory is useful in interpreting our universe) I would hardly call it chic. In some ways it's empowering, enabling me to see that there are patterns, that I'm not imagining the things I see, and that there are others who have come up with strategies for dealing with the inevitable problems that come up, as well as for 'fixing' the system -- in other ways it's depressing, because it would be nice if I were the only person who has had to fight some of the battles I have -- not for me, but for the rest of the world. 'Chic' is just not a word I'd use to describe it.
That said, I'm sure that, should you be politically minded, there are plenty of political ideas and philosphies that could help you make sense of your life. (Actually, radical feminism also holds that patriarchy harms men, though not really in teh same ways that Promise keepers thinks)
>Fine by me. Though it'd be nice if the
> environmentalists,
if you haven't noticed, the majority of environmental activists are white males, so I find it highly suspect that they are blaming you, because you are a white male.
> racist race warlords (self-appointed "civil
> rights leaders"),
I sincerely hope that you aren't trying to imply that all civil rights leaders are racist race warlords (there are a very few who are of color, there are a hell of a lot more who are white males) -- for the non-racists race warlord civil rights activists, please see feminism
>and feminists stopped blaming the troubles of
>the world on me just cause I happen to be a
> white male. Hey, I didn't ask to be.
Cluephone here -- (and I'm a radical lesbian feminist, so I think I have some right to speak on this subject) -- no one is saying, you, Dannon, are the cause of all evils because you are a white male. The *concept* of white male -- the whole societal philosophy that allows the concept of "white male" to exist (and no, neither feminists nor racial minorities invented the concept) is the problem. And I know you didn't ask to be, I didn't particularly ask to be a mixed race dyke myself...it just happens (in the most literal of senses) -- that said, there's no escaping that you benefit from the privileges accorded to white males in this society, as I benefit from the privileges accorded to white women in this society when I pass for white (which is fairly often, I'll admit -- not entirely by choice)
Certainly, the societal framework that feminism (and civil rights movements) works against is generations old -- no one living now had any say in it's beginning, but we all have a little say in it's demise.
oops. sorry. that was a language mistake -- to be clearer, my experience with goretex is that it's a bit like walking around in my own personal sauna -- not quite as bad as most waterproof things, but it could stand a bit of improvement...
So's gore-tex -- it's advertised to allow sweat out but not let rain in...
it's pretty good at the latter, in my experience...not so good at the former...
it's all about where you are to the aliens, it probably would be pest control....
I eat kudzu
oh, wait, that's 'cos my mom's japanese, not because I had the misfortune to be raised in virginia..never mind
(of course, if you southerners would get over your culturally ingrained habits, you'd realize that kudzu is good and a good source of fiber [for paper, I mean -- and supposedly you can spin it..haven't tried that yet, though] and it would cease being [such] a pest plant)
you forgot hendrix on capital hill, or are you just talking fremont here?
(the first time someone told me that there was a troll under the fremont bridge I thought she was pulling my leg)
I miss seattle now..wah!!!!
actually, as I understand it pearl harbor was *not* a surprise to the intelligence community -- it was just decided not to announce it so that the average american would be happier to get into WWII (in other words, it was a political decision)
granted, I only have the word of a few intelligence folks whom I know socially to go off of here
>..punishable by deportation to Earth.
damn, you're nice. I say just push 'em out the airlock
but then, I guess I'm a not so benevolent dictator, muahahahahaha!