You know, if you feel like an alien, why not go start your own country far, far, far away. With booze and blackjack and hookers. Or not. Just sayin'. Go on. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.
That double standard? That's part of the same sexist paradigm. That's why there's that feminist saying, "Patriarchy hurts men, too." I would quibble with using the word 'patriarchy', but the gist is still relevant.
"The nice thing about being a white male is that I don't have a chip on my shoulder when interacting with other people. I figure that people that treat me badly do so because they think they can get away with it."
I tend to shy away from discussions about privilege, because it has a tendency to become somewhat provincial IMO, but that's a statement that's pretty much impossible to ignore. I shall print it out and frame it and use it as an example whenever someone asks "so what is this privilege thing everyone's talking about?"
You might want to take a look at http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
Check out #19 and #46 especially.
Damn, and I thought the actual posts here were depressing...(and so much for the idea that 'real identities' promote civility.) That FB thread has mean struggling with the urge to call 'em male chauvinist pigs and be done with it. (hey! Old school feminism for old school sexism.)
Even a mediocre union is better than none? I'm not sure that's true. It's quite possible for a union to drive itself out of business. Just look at the port of San Francisco.
Gentler? Hah. What a load that is. I work for the Girl Scouts. The entire staff is women. 90% of our volunteers are women. There's nothing gentle; it's just more subtle. I'd rather work with guys, tbh- though the exception is misogynistic assholes. It's one thing to be catching shit from someone who is just an equal-opportunity jerk; it's another thing entirely to know that you're only catching shit because you're female, and that there's nothing you can ever do to stop that. Therein lies the difference, I think.
Verizon charges something like $2/MB.
It's also forcing everyone to add on an internet plan if they join/renew their contract/get a new phone.
For all the comments about how it's really a matter of making the cost reflect the reality (etc, etc), it sure looks a lot like rent-seeking to me. Which is pretty much business as usual for the phone companies, I suppose.
No, certainly not. And I really don't mind you guys. I may not understand it, but if it is what makes you happy, it's a great thing.
What bothers me is the vocal not-so-minority that keeps pumping their views on me, that try to "convert" and "save" me, and most of all, that try to subvert and infiltrate our laws.
That's fair enough. I must apologize for not reading your comment closely enough previously; your meaning was clear. I became frustrated with a lot of the other posts in this thread, and unjustly jumped down your throat because of that.
I promise you, as a religious person, that I have absolutely no interest in "saving" you or destroying you. It's not anything personal, I just don't think it's any of my business! Shocking, I'm sure, but it really shouldn't be. I'm hardly alone in this.
Actually, I remember Diaspora being discussed a few weeks ago here when someone asked for an alternative to Facebook. At the time, they'd only raised about ~1,000 dollars, so it must have been pretty soon after they started looking for donations.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think that the number of people already on facebook is definitely an obstacle, but just look at its own history. You just need to create momentum, which is difficult to do but not impossible. When I first joined facebook, hardly anyone I knew outside of one specific circle of friends were on it. But I would tell my other friends about it, and eventually they'd try it out, and presumably do the same to others.
I don't doubt it would change, but I doubt it would change like facebook did, at least in regards to privacy. The set-up alone would make that seem like a non-starter. All facebook needed to do was change its TOS. That doesn't seem like it'd work here.
What I think their biggest challenge is going to be is to make it as easy to use/join as the more centralized social networks. Anything that starts out by saying "allows you to set up your own node" is going to turn off a vast majority of people.
Facebook got people to trust it with their real identities with some fairly robust privacy controls, so stripping those out now is a legitimate cause for concern. Additionally, there is a difference, a very important difference, between having something be out there, and having something *broadcast*. Privacy should not and does not require secrecy.
I may tell a friend (in RL or on Facebook) that I'm going down to the beach today. I may not mind if other people overhear, or if my friend tells someone, but it'd be pretty ridiculous to suggest that by doing that, I should expect both that it be passed on ("novium told so and so she was going to the beach.") to ever damn single person I know, in addition to the government, corporations, and every random joe out there.
The thing about telling a friend something, online or in real life, is that people have an innate sense of the context that all social interactions carry. They'll know who it is appropriate to tell and who it is not. They'll understand the connotations of telling person A version telling person B. And I'll know them well enough to assume how they'll handle that information... and if they violate that trust, it will have been a decision on their part, and will in a sense part of larger set of social interactions, the result of which might be that I'll either chew them out or stop talking to them.
Yes, of course, you shouldn't put anything on the web that you might not want found out. It's a record, same as anything else. But then, once again, we're hitting on the issue of privacy rather than secrecy.
The problem is that some of us opted-in to "using facebook" back in the early days when it wasn't so villainous. It got people to trust it with their real identities when it was just this small and highly restricted little thing- just your school, just your friends... and its policy was that it was all about privacy.
It has changed quite a bit from what it was originally.
Things rarely start out at the constitutional level. Laws are built up, and maybe eventually challenged, but not necessarily successfully. The precedent for the third and fourth party loophole has been established by the supreme court. The EFF has a pretty good summary of the situation on their site.
They can't buy them from third parties (i.e. facebook) but there's nothing to say they can't buy it from fourth parties, which is what they do. Company A that sells user data to Company B which is then utterly free to sell it to the government.
Oh, good. So Apple is simply engaging in paternalism.
Which is all bullshit anyway, because it's not about them trying to keep it from being 'easy' to do in order to protect the morons. If that were simply the case, they wouldn't be trying to block it under the DMCA. They don't want *anyone*- no matter how technically astute- to do it.
They want you to pay the money, but they don't want you to have ownership control over it.
I won't ever buy an apple product for this very reason, but you're missing the point: it's your property. What Apple is doing is only the tip of the iceberg. It's part of a trend to undermine property rights in their favor. You buy the device, but don't own it.
Imagine in it in relation to anything else and the absurdity soon becomes apparent. There was an amusing book (The Whole-E Grill IIRC) that involved something similar, about a corporation reminiscent of Microsoft in regards to its size and reminiscent of Apple in regards to the walled garden approach that starts selling barbecues- and they're absurdly expensive, owners were not allowed to tamper with them, no one could take them apart, or use non-approved meats or sauces on them. People who did tended to get sued...or the barbecues exploded.
The funny thing was that it was written a decade ago.
It's murky, but I know that EFF was asking for an exemption from the DMCA for jailbreaking phones. They are also sort of worried that they won't be able to do the same for the iPad until 2011. If you search for 'DMCA exemption jailbreaking' , you can choose your source.
I'm only sad that Moffat wasn't brought on as showrunner while DT was still on board. I love him as an actor, but damn, as the seasons went on my tolerance for the show went through the floor. Catherine Tate won me over in her season, but too many episodes were just too stupid for words.
I may give this a try again, but Davies burned me out big time in regards to the show.
In fine points of enjoyment, certainly. In what people think a wine is *worth*, which is the big one, definitely. But in why a wine tastes like it does, and how to get there? That is science.
Take a tour in a modern winery. Talk to the wine makers. It might surprise you.
Wine making is not subjective. Unless you think chemistry is subjective? That's basically what they've got it down to. They track everything about the wine- they know exactly how the soil composition will effect the vines, they measure the sugars in the grapes, they know exactly why you can get certain notes in wine, and work to get those.I am a bit hazy on those details, but as I recall (and it'll probably be hilariously wrong in the detail) it has something to do with something in the wine, something chemistry-ish being able to replicate the things that make, say, a grapefruit taste like a grapefruit.
Slashdot Mirror
I was being facetious. It wasn't a serious suggestion.
You know, if you feel like an alien, why not go start your own country far, far, far away. With booze and blackjack and hookers. Or not. Just sayin'. Go on. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.
That double standard? That's part of the same sexist paradigm. That's why there's that feminist saying, "Patriarchy hurts men, too." I would quibble with using the word 'patriarchy', but the gist is still relevant.
"The nice thing about being a white male is that I don't have a chip on my shoulder when interacting with other people. I figure that people that treat me badly do so because they think they can get away with it." I tend to shy away from discussions about privilege, because it has a tendency to become somewhat provincial IMO, but that's a statement that's pretty much impossible to ignore. I shall print it out and frame it and use it as an example whenever someone asks "so what is this privilege thing everyone's talking about?" You might want to take a look at http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ Check out #19 and #46 especially.
Damn, and I thought the actual posts here were depressing...(and so much for the idea that 'real identities' promote civility.) That FB thread has mean struggling with the urge to call 'em male chauvinist pigs and be done with it. (hey! Old school feminism for old school sexism.)
Even a mediocre union is better than none? I'm not sure that's true. It's quite possible for a union to drive itself out of business. Just look at the port of San Francisco.
Gentler? Hah. What a load that is. I work for the Girl Scouts. The entire staff is women. 90% of our volunteers are women. There's nothing gentle; it's just more subtle. I'd rather work with guys, tbh- though the exception is misogynistic assholes. It's one thing to be catching shit from someone who is just an equal-opportunity jerk; it's another thing entirely to know that you're only catching shit because you're female, and that there's nothing you can ever do to stop that. Therein lies the difference, I think.
Verizon charges something like $2/MB. It's also forcing everyone to add on an internet plan if they join/renew their contract/get a new phone. For all the comments about how it's really a matter of making the cost reflect the reality (etc, etc), it sure looks a lot like rent-seeking to me. Which is pretty much business as usual for the phone companies, I suppose.
No, certainly not. And I really don't mind you guys. I may not understand it, but if it is what makes you happy, it's a great thing.
What bothers me is the vocal not-so-minority that keeps pumping their views on me, that try to "convert" and "save" me, and most of all, that try to subvert and infiltrate our laws.
That's fair enough. I must apologize for not reading your comment closely enough previously; your meaning was clear. I became frustrated with a lot of the other posts in this thread, and unjustly jumped down your throat because of that.
I promise you, as a religious person, that I have absolutely no interest in "saving" you or destroying you. It's not anything personal, I just don't think it's any of my business! Shocking, I'm sure, but it really shouldn't be. I'm hardly alone in this.
Actually, I remember Diaspora being discussed a few weeks ago here when someone asked for an alternative to Facebook. At the time, they'd only raised about ~1,000 dollars, so it must have been pretty soon after they started looking for donations.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think that the number of people already on facebook is definitely an obstacle, but just look at its own history. You just need to create momentum, which is difficult to do but not impossible. When I first joined facebook, hardly anyone I knew outside of one specific circle of friends were on it. But I would tell my other friends about it, and eventually they'd try it out, and presumably do the same to others. I don't doubt it would change, but I doubt it would change like facebook did, at least in regards to privacy. The set-up alone would make that seem like a non-starter. All facebook needed to do was change its TOS. That doesn't seem like it'd work here. What I think their biggest challenge is going to be is to make it as easy to use/join as the more centralized social networks. Anything that starts out by saying "allows you to set up your own node" is going to turn off a vast majority of people.
Facebook got people to trust it with their real identities with some fairly robust privacy controls, so stripping those out now is a legitimate cause for concern. Additionally, there is a difference, a very important difference, between having something be out there, and having something *broadcast*. Privacy should not and does not require secrecy. I may tell a friend (in RL or on Facebook) that I'm going down to the beach today. I may not mind if other people overhear, or if my friend tells someone, but it'd be pretty ridiculous to suggest that by doing that, I should expect both that it be passed on ("novium told so and so she was going to the beach.") to ever damn single person I know, in addition to the government, corporations, and every random joe out there. The thing about telling a friend something, online or in real life, is that people have an innate sense of the context that all social interactions carry. They'll know who it is appropriate to tell and who it is not. They'll understand the connotations of telling person A version telling person B. And I'll know them well enough to assume how they'll handle that information... and if they violate that trust, it will have been a decision on their part, and will in a sense part of larger set of social interactions, the result of which might be that I'll either chew them out or stop talking to them. Yes, of course, you shouldn't put anything on the web that you might not want found out. It's a record, same as anything else. But then, once again, we're hitting on the issue of privacy rather than secrecy.
The problem is that some of us opted-in to "using facebook" back in the early days when it wasn't so villainous. It got people to trust it with their real identities when it was just this small and highly restricted little thing- just your school, just your friends... and its policy was that it was all about privacy. It has changed quite a bit from what it was originally.
Things rarely start out at the constitutional level. Laws are built up, and maybe eventually challenged, but not necessarily successfully. The precedent for the third and fourth party loophole has been established by the supreme court. The EFF has a pretty good summary of the situation on their site.
They can't buy them from third parties (i.e. facebook) but there's nothing to say they can't buy it from fourth parties, which is what they do. Company A that sells user data to Company B which is then utterly free to sell it to the government.
But only for new accounts, apparently.
Oh, good. So Apple is simply engaging in paternalism. Which is all bullshit anyway, because it's not about them trying to keep it from being 'easy' to do in order to protect the morons. If that were simply the case, they wouldn't be trying to block it under the DMCA. They don't want *anyone*- no matter how technically astute- to do it. They want you to pay the money, but they don't want you to have ownership control over it.
I won't ever buy an apple product for this very reason, but you're missing the point: it's your property. What Apple is doing is only the tip of the iceberg. It's part of a trend to undermine property rights in their favor. You buy the device, but don't own it. Imagine in it in relation to anything else and the absurdity soon becomes apparent. There was an amusing book (The Whole-E Grill IIRC) that involved something similar, about a corporation reminiscent of Microsoft in regards to its size and reminiscent of Apple in regards to the walled garden approach that starts selling barbecues- and they're absurdly expensive, owners were not allowed to tamper with them, no one could take them apart, or use non-approved meats or sauces on them. People who did tended to get sued...or the barbecues exploded. The funny thing was that it was written a decade ago.
What about when they're the ones releasing updates that 'break' the device? (Perhaps on purpose?)
It's murky, but I know that EFF was asking for an exemption from the DMCA for jailbreaking phones. They are also sort of worried that they won't be able to do the same for the iPad until 2011. If you search for 'DMCA exemption jailbreaking' , you can choose your source.
I'm only sad that Moffat wasn't brought on as showrunner while DT was still on board. I love him as an actor, but damn, as the seasons went on my tolerance for the show went through the floor. Catherine Tate won me over in her season, but too many episodes were just too stupid for words. I may give this a try again, but Davies burned me out big time in regards to the show.
Land grab? The civil war? Are you kidding?
In fine points of enjoyment, certainly. In what people think a wine is *worth*, which is the big one, definitely. But in why a wine tastes like it does, and how to get there? That is science. Take a tour in a modern winery. Talk to the wine makers. It might surprise you.
Wine making is not subjective. Unless you think chemistry is subjective? That's basically what they've got it down to. They track everything about the wine- they know exactly how the soil composition will effect the vines, they measure the sugars in the grapes, they know exactly why you can get certain notes in wine, and work to get those.I am a bit hazy on those details, but as I recall (and it'll probably be hilariously wrong in the detail) it has something to do with something in the wine, something chemistry-ish being able to replicate the things that make, say, a grapefruit taste like a grapefruit.