It all seems like ambiguous nonsense to me. From the looks of it, what those two things mean is subjective, and whether or not what you stated is actually wrong is also subjective.
FWIW, women do have a right to expect not to be made the target of misogynistic jokes and have a right to be protected in the workplace from inappropriate comments.
Well, they certainly can expect all they want, but that doesn't necessarily make their expectations realistic or even morally sound. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any right to suppress those who offend you. I suppose the employer could choose to fire those who make sexist jokes, though.
In any case, I can't see why she'd even confront them about this. How can a person who is, in my opinion, so clearly oversensitive even function properly in society? Or does she?
Attitudes like yours -- that it's ok to make sexual jokes when you are on the job, working around other people, and anybody who has a problem with it is a horrible, humorless person -- are exactly what's wrong in the industry.
In my opinion, attitudes like yours -- that it's somehow objectively wrong to make 'sexist' jokes or that such jokes are even sexist in the first place -- are exactly what's making certain people ignore real instances of sexism.
Well, maybe they should learn to act professional
Maybe you shouldn't use such ambiguous terms; just a suggestion.
The IT world does not need people who can't work unless they act like they're still in high school or like their job is some sort of good old boys' club.
I fail to see how two people telling one another jokes is relevant to what you said.
I've seen no one who claims that artists shouldn't be paid.
It seems to be a fundamental theme running through this thread, the notion that creating an additional copy is free, so the works should be free (or at least very very low cost).
Sometimes having a low cost can help you get more sales. I've noticed a lot of people here are simply arguing against DRM, however.
A lot of people don't want to consider initial costs
It's not very difficult to realize that there are initial costs, and I'm not entirely sure that people aren't realizing that they exist.
Regardless, the guy I was talking about was merely arguing against DRM, and yet the one who replied to him seemed to act as if he said that artists shouldn't be paid.
I really would not say that the people are so willing to give up freedoms.
To give some examples: the TSA, the Patriot Act, and free speech zones. Oh, and protesting permits.
For example the idea that when in public there is some mystical right of privacy
When in public, I believe I should be free from mass government surveillance.
Do I like cams that blanket my block to keep people from trying to steal my lawn mower? Hell yes.
Since you talked about cameras being placed all over your block, I can only assume you mean cameras owned by the government. This says to me that you enjoy mass surveillance. I hope you don't claim to be for small government (we have too many of those small-government-but-not-really comedians as it is, in my opinion), or claim that your goal is to have a free country.
To be honest, I'd say trying to stop copyright infringement is even less effective than the war on drugs and all those other things; there are numerous ways to make yourself nearly unidentifiable (even your ip address), and it's just hard to go after so many people doing things in the comfort of their own homes in general.
Not to mention that it should be easy for potential customers to buy it. I don't think a guy making a small piece of software would do this, but there's that region-locking nonsense that game development companies seem to be fond of.
This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
That is, a nation full of people who are willing to give away all of their freedoms to the government so they can feel safe, and who accuse anyone of opposing these measures of being on the Bad Guy Team.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out why many users of the internet are opposed to a DRM standard
Because they believe DRM is a legitimately bad thing that tries to stop the 'piracy' bogeyman at the expense of user freedom? Or were you just trying to label most people who disagree as 'pirates'?
While I do think the questions seem misplaced, I don't think it really matters; pretty much all of the questions just test for memorization and require little thought at all.
A good car thief can steal you car even if you have quality locks and am alarm. But you still lock your car right?
Fortunately, locking my car door doesn't have anything to do with other people. On the other hand, DRM affects paying customers, not just the ones who made the software. Not a very good analogy, in my opinion.
That's why we have such terrible DRM in the first place.
You have terrible DRM because developers implement said DRM. 'Piracy' is just a justification, but it is ultimately the developers (or companies) that decide to implement the DRM, so most of the blame rests with them.
It's just common sense, not pedantic rocket science.
What is? That freeloaders are 'scum-suckers'? Labeling something as "common sense" does not make it a common belief nor does it make it true. After all, I certainly don't agree that 'freeloading' is always wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You should not hear them at a business conference
Why? Because you say so? I could just as easily say that about many different kinds of things.
exposing people to pornography (without their consent of course)
I have a right to not be exposed to comments such as yours.
privileged class
Is that supposed to be something you just throw out there so you can ignore what someone said?
Being crude in a professional setting is wrong.
It all seems like ambiguous nonsense to me. From the looks of it, what those two things mean is subjective, and whether or not what you stated is actually wrong is also subjective.
And the fact that this was moderated +5 Insightful shows why the industry has such a long way to go
A comment on Slashdot shows why the industry has such a long way to go? Interesting.
must be regulated and monitored for our safety.
I got a good laugh out of that one.
FWIW, women do have a right to expect not to be made the target of misogynistic jokes and have a right to be protected in the workplace from inappropriate comments.
Well, they certainly can expect all they want, but that doesn't necessarily make their expectations realistic or even morally sound. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any right to suppress those who offend you. I suppose the employer could choose to fire those who make sexist jokes, though.
It was certainly not appropriate for that setting
Well, that's subjective.
In any case, I can't see why she'd even confront them about this. How can a person who is, in my opinion, so clearly oversensitive even function properly in society? Or does she?
Attitudes like yours -- that it's ok to make sexual jokes when you are on the job, working around other people, and anybody who has a problem with it is a horrible, humorless person -- are exactly what's wrong in the industry.
In my opinion, attitudes like yours -- that it's somehow objectively wrong to make 'sexist' jokes or that such jokes are even sexist in the first place -- are exactly what's making certain people ignore real instances of sexism.
Well, maybe they should learn to act professional
Maybe you shouldn't use such ambiguous terms; just a suggestion.
The IT world does not need people who can't work unless they act like they're still in high school or like their job is some sort of good old boys' club.
I fail to see how two people telling one another jokes is relevant to what you said.
Even if they didn't, I don't see how that would be sexism.
I've seen no one who claims that artists shouldn't be paid.
It seems to be a fundamental theme running through this thread, the notion that creating an additional copy is free, so the works should be free (or at least very very low cost).
Sometimes having a low cost can help you get more sales. I've noticed a lot of people here are simply arguing against DRM, however.
A lot of people don't want to consider initial costs
It's not very difficult to realize that there are initial costs, and I'm not entirely sure that people aren't realizing that they exist.
Regardless, the guy I was talking about was merely arguing against DRM, and yet the one who replied to him seemed to act as if he said that artists shouldn't be paid.
I really would not say that the people are so willing to give up freedoms.
To give some examples: the TSA, the Patriot Act, and free speech zones. Oh, and protesting permits.
For example the idea that when in public there is some mystical right of privacy
When in public, I believe I should be free from mass government surveillance.
Do I like cams that blanket my block to keep people from trying to steal my lawn mower? Hell yes.
Since you talked about cameras being placed all over your block, I can only assume you mean cameras owned by the government. This says to me that you enjoy mass surveillance. I hope you don't claim to be for small government (we have too many of those small-government-but-not-really comedians as it is, in my opinion), or claim that your goal is to have a free country.
To be honest, I'd say trying to stop copyright infringement is even less effective than the war on drugs and all those other things; there are numerous ways to make yourself nearly unidentifiable (even your ip address), and it's just hard to go after so many people doing things in the comfort of their own homes in general.
Not to mention that it should be easy for potential customers to buy it. I don't think a guy making a small piece of software would do this, but there's that region-locking nonsense that game development companies seem to be fond of.
This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
That is, a nation full of people who are willing to give away all of their freedoms to the government so they can feel safe, and who accuse anyone of opposing these measures of being on the Bad Guy Team.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out why many users of the internet are opposed to a DRM standard
Because they believe DRM is a legitimately bad thing that tries to stop the 'piracy' bogeyman at the expense of user freedom? Or were you just trying to label most people who disagree as 'pirates'?
Screw paying the artist.
Who says the artist will be paid if he/she uses DRM? Even if DRM worked, I don't think it justifies the controlling, harmful nature of DRM.
But I really have no idea where the guy said that artists shouldn't be paid.
While I do think the questions seem misplaced, I don't think it really matters; pretty much all of the questions just test for memorization and require little thought at all.
Most pirates are casual pirates that wouldn't put much effort into it.
Installing a crack doesn't require much effort.
I buy pro software and the DRM is pretty draconian.
Then if possible, I suggest you stop buying it; you're only encouraging behavior I believe is immoral.
A good car thief can steal you car even if you have quality locks and am alarm. But you still lock your car right?
Fortunately, locking my car door doesn't have anything to do with other people. On the other hand, DRM affects paying customers, not just the ones who made the software. Not a very good analogy, in my opinion.
No need to leak anything; just download a crack.
That's why we have such terrible DRM in the first place.
You have terrible DRM because developers implement said DRM. 'Piracy' is just a justification, but it is ultimately the developers (or companies) that decide to implement the DRM, so most of the blame rests with them.
One user? Hopefully you lose many more than that.
It's just common sense, not pedantic rocket science.
What is? That freeloaders are 'scum-suckers'? Labeling something as "common sense" does not make it a common belief nor does it make it true. After all, I certainly don't agree that 'freeloading' is always wrong.