But no, we ain't gonna do that, eh? Haven't you seen misandristic behavior online? Why do you think that exists? Are you okay with it? If not, what can be done about it? Let's have a day to talk about it.
I would love to see that discussion, actually. For myself, a white male, I've not felt myself a victim of misandry (my spellchecker does recognize that word) or seen that behavior online, at least not to the point that it has worried me. If your experience is different, I say again, let's have a discussion on misandry and the proliferation of misplaced misogynist complaints. But let's leave insults and vitriol out of it (speaking generally, not to you personally).
Combined with how computer science curricula are getting changed in a bid to appeal to women (which often seems to mean dumbing it down, because women need things easier for some inexplicable reason?), making the current group feel alienated with their own favorite subject, and how nerds/geeks as a group are known to be often harassed or bullied, the shield raising shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Those are good points, and what I wanted to hear (i.e., here are the reasons for the "shield raising"). I was a bit taken aback by all the vitriol when Bruce's points, whether grounded in reality or not, seem to come out of a sensible and compassionate concern.
What's with all the Bruce hate? What is wrong with discussing a "gender empathy gap", why it might exist and what we might do about it? If you disagree with his point then offer sensible counterpoints of your own, but when you insult him or his ideas you're just reinforcing his point that the tech world is full of socially challenged asshats.
I would also think that Bruce's contributions to open software would merit some reflective humility, to maybe sit back and think a bit about what he's saying. Haven't you seen misogynistic behavior online? Why do you think that exists? Are you okay with it? If not, what can be done about it?
Thank you Bruce for openly speaking your concerns and ideas. I hope we can find a way to foster a more humane and empathetic open source community.
For astrology, it's been discredited over and over and over.
It's also been validated over and over and over but not by anyone with a reputation to risk. The bias against astrology is so strong that it is usually discredited without being properly understood, and the successes are ignored. And it's near impossible to get the funding to do a proper serious study.
I'm hoping that the standing wave of electrical energy in my brain that makes me "me" will persist in the quantum sea or foam or whatever and that the "me" part will go on to something different. I don't actually believe it will but it's a nice thought to have.
That was nicely said. I personally believe that there is a 'me' identity that persists, but that we can't really understand its nature, any more than we can truly understand ourselves (a lifelong struggle, that). I certainly can't prove such a thing and accept I could be wrong. But it feels right to me.
And I hope y'all would accept me at the beer table. Cheers.
The dehumanization of anyone, regardless of how they may be broken, will inevitably lead to suffering. How to deal with psychopaths is a debatable topic. But we have to see them like ourselves, with all the challenges that brings, if we are to stop violence like we are seeing today.
I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question. Either belief can be attached to, to the point of justifying violence. And neither belief on its own is likely to cause a person to be violent, unless circumstances pressure them into it.
However, "Christian" and "Psychotic" do imply certain very specific things that are generally agreed upon. I don't think the same can really be said of the term "atheist".
When I think of atheist -- meaning, "there are no deities" -- that seems fairly specific to me. Unless you include being open to other possibilities (higher consciousness extant in any form, but not deified) as part of atheism. Now we're straying into philosophical semantics!
I don't know whether it's right to say religious ideology or national ideology are more to blame for rises of violent opposition. Maybe there's a study somewhere. In any case, I agree it's all madness. I think we're living in a time where religious ideology is about to explode in many forms. What will the Christian right's response to this be? How will this effect the presidential election? Interesting times, to put it mildly.
And it's the same way with atheism- it's a single specific data point, and that's all it is.
I hear your anger at those with a fanatical agenda. I feel that way too. Makes me want to kick religion in the nuts. But you can also say that "Christian" is a data point. "Psychotic" and "Bald" are data points. I hope you don't take my comments as against Atheism. But if I begin to separate others based on a perceived polar opposition to myself ("Muslim" means anti-Christian, "Sane" means anti-psychotic, "Haired" means anti-bald, "Religious" means anti-Atheist, or anti-rational), then the capacity for violence exists. You as an atheist are just as likely to be a thoughtful, reasoned, compassionate person as a Christian or Muslim. And any atheist can be just as likely to be a fanatical violent criminal as any religious fanatic.
My original point is that religious fanaticism thrives in extremely violent conditions because of the deep trauma created by those conditions. Plus without a stable societal structure to educate its people and deal with those who are mentally unstable, the broken and corrupted more easily arise as leaders with a violent agenda. What some of these people have been through, whether it's Western bombs, Assad's biological weapons, or ISIS's abject cruelty, they have little left to lose. Long seething rage plus hatred plus a perceived cause to fight for will equal deadly outbursts every time.
Yes, it's this too, but without the shared delusion of religion and a supposed afterlife, no one would be so keen to machine gun groups of complete strangers, would they?
Pretty sure Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn't use religion as an excuse to create massive violence. Doesn't matter if religion is in the picture, when hate is stirred up it will find a vehicle to express itself. Religion is an offshoot of dogma, or an attachment to a belief to create a sense of security. Atheism is also a dogma and can produce just as much violence.
While those of us who don't follow or practice any religion look on in horror at what fanatical religious beliefs produce.:(
I think it's too easy to say that this kind of violence is simply the consequence of religious fanaticism. It's not the religion that produces the violence, it's the extreme violence that these people have lived under that produces traumatized, unstable minds that are prone to becoming fanatic via whatever dominant fervor surrounds them. Whether it's Islam or some kind of state nationalism or some kind of philosophical ideal, whatever it is that gives them a clear conscience to kill those who have harmed them, that's the banner they carry.
The challenge to humanity is to break away from the "us vs them" mentality. Those we call terrorists are still humans like us. None of us can say how we would react if we were brought up surrounded by the horrors that these folks have. That is not an apology, only a perspective. Healing can only come when we truly understand the reasons why these events are happening and not write it all off to religious fanaticism.
At the end of the video embedded in the article the announcer explains that Obsession was not the best performing scent, that that scent is being kept secret. In fact, Obsession doesn't work as well in the wild as it does in zoos (or so they say).
I live in Chicago. East Rogers Park, at the most northeast end of the city. I live on a Lake Michigan beach and have gorgeous views of water (east) and coastline (south). The building I live in has charm, character and a generous community. I pay a modest rent for a spacious one bedroom place. Best of all, it's quiet.
On a hot July day like today, I look out my window and see beach goers, kayaks, sailboats, catamarans, and the like. It's like living on a resort.
During the winters, the snow and ice over the lake is breathtaking, and the sun rises are magnificent.
I've lived in parts of the city I wouldn't ever want to visit again. But there are areas of Chicago that are real gems. It's not all greedy politicians (fuck Rahm) and pollution and crime.
The parking meter disaster was Daley's fuckup. Now Rahm has contributed to the blood-squeeze of the citizenry. Chicago's not a perfect place and I would have been long gone had I not found the place where I live now. But Chicago still has some of the best music, food, and ethnic diversity you'll find anywhere. Don't go by the headlines to find out what Chicago has to offer. Dig a little deeper.
And there just isn't much economic demand for lots of engineers and scientists and artists....Wages are going to crash, then what?
Maybe humanity will finally be motivated to figure out that mass economic stability and security comes from serving each other instead of rigidly serving the self, because serving others is enlightened self interest.
Pardon my ire, but what the fuck should I or anyone else care about how much fear the government thinks we should feel? Are people really that stupid that they'll entrust their emotional response to the advice of government and media? Maybe they should be advising us on the facts and not trying to control our reactions. "Trust us, little children, everything's under control, no need to panic -- until we tell you otherwise."
Your point is well taken, although I can see that the watch has value with regard to the fitness apps. Since the watch can monitor your heartbeat, it can give you stats and make recommendations that a phone can't. The fitness apps Apple is providing look very impressive. Also, little features like tapping your wrist to tell you when to make a right or left turn while walking are nice to have. Over time other uses for the watch will likely appear that can't be replicated on a phone. Not to mention it is still something of a convenience to glance at your wrist rather than pull a phone out of your pocket.
Clearly this device is for people with the disposable income to afford it, it's certainly not a must-have technology for most people. But it seems reasonable to expect it'll be popular with the rich and Apple faithful.
A gigantic set of the population is no longer even used to the concept of wearing a watch, because they have their phone.
Apple took away the people's need for watches -- and now is giving it back again.
A professional marimba is typically made of Rosewood, which is a very expensive wood (due to restrictions on its export). It also requires a high degree of craftsmanship to build. The sound of a marimba is very different from a xylophone, with long, rich sustained notes.
The linked Ars Technica review pretty much only looks at surface level details, like icons, window buttons, menus, etc. Doesn't say anything about functionality, speed, or lower level concerns.
And this line is misleading:
It's a very Microsoft-esque way to roll out an OS: you give enthusiasts a chance to work with an early-but-reasonably-stable build in exchange for valuable bug-squashing feedback.
Microsoft got the idea from Apple, who started their public beta program with the first version of OS X back in 2001.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to see that discussion, actually. For myself, a white male, I've not felt myself a victim of misandry (my spellchecker does recognize that word) or seen that behavior online, at least not to the point that it has worried me. If your experience is different, I say again, let's have a discussion on misandry and the proliferation of misplaced misogynist complaints. But let's leave insults and vitriol out of it (speaking generally, not to you personally).
Those are good points, and what I wanted to hear (i.e., here are the reasons for the "shield raising"). I was a bit taken aback by all the vitriol when Bruce's points, whether grounded in reality or not, seem to come out of a sensible and compassionate concern.
What's with all the Bruce hate? What is wrong with discussing a "gender empathy gap", why it might exist and what we might do about it? If you disagree with his point then offer sensible counterpoints of your own, but when you insult him or his ideas you're just reinforcing his point that the tech world is full of socially challenged asshats.
I would also think that Bruce's contributions to open software would merit some reflective humility, to maybe sit back and think a bit about what he's saying. Haven't you seen misogynistic behavior online? Why do you think that exists? Are you okay with it? If not, what can be done about it?
Thank you Bruce for openly speaking your concerns and ideas. I hope we can find a way to foster a more humane and empathetic open source community.
It's also been validated over and over and over but not by anyone with a reputation to risk. The bias against astrology is so strong that it is usually discredited without being properly understood, and the successes are ignored. And it's near impossible to get the funding to do a proper serious study.
Michael J. Nelson has done just that.
That was nicely said. I personally believe that there is a 'me' identity that persists, but that we can't really understand its nature, any more than we can truly understand ourselves (a lifelong struggle, that). I certainly can't prove such a thing and accept I could be wrong. But it feels right to me.
And I hope y'all would accept me at the beer table. Cheers.
The dehumanization of anyone, regardless of how they may be broken, will inevitably lead to suffering. How to deal with psychopaths is a debatable topic. But we have to see them like ourselves, with all the challenges that brings, if we are to stop violence like we are seeing today.
I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question. Either belief can be attached to, to the point of justifying violence. And neither belief on its own is likely to cause a person to be violent, unless circumstances pressure them into it.
When I think of atheist -- meaning, "there are no deities" -- that seems fairly specific to me. Unless you include being open to other possibilities (higher consciousness extant in any form, but not deified) as part of atheism. Now we're straying into philosophical semantics!
I don't know whether it's right to say religious ideology or national ideology are more to blame for rises of violent opposition. Maybe there's a study somewhere. In any case, I agree it's all madness. I think we're living in a time where religious ideology is about to explode in many forms. What will the Christian right's response to this be? How will this effect the presidential election? Interesting times, to put it mildly.
Isn't the belief against an idea just as dogmatic as the belief in the idea?
I hear your anger at those with a fanatical agenda. I feel that way too. Makes me want to kick religion in the nuts. But you can also say that "Christian" is a data point. "Psychotic" and "Bald" are data points. I hope you don't take my comments as against Atheism. But if I begin to separate others based on a perceived polar opposition to myself ("Muslim" means anti-Christian, "Sane" means anti-psychotic, "Haired" means anti-bald, "Religious" means anti-Atheist, or anti-rational), then the capacity for violence exists. You as an atheist are just as likely to be a thoughtful, reasoned, compassionate person as a Christian or Muslim. And any atheist can be just as likely to be a fanatical violent criminal as any religious fanatic.
My original point is that religious fanaticism thrives in extremely violent conditions because of the deep trauma created by those conditions. Plus without a stable societal structure to educate its people and deal with those who are mentally unstable, the broken and corrupted more easily arise as leaders with a violent agenda. What some of these people have been through, whether it's Western bombs, Assad's biological weapons, or ISIS's abject cruelty, they have little left to lose. Long seething rage plus hatred plus a perceived cause to fight for will equal deadly outbursts every time.
Pretty sure Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn't use religion as an excuse to create massive violence. Doesn't matter if religion is in the picture, when hate is stirred up it will find a vehicle to express itself. Religion is an offshoot of dogma, or an attachment to a belief to create a sense of security. Atheism is also a dogma and can produce just as much violence.
I think it's too easy to say that this kind of violence is simply the consequence of religious fanaticism. It's not the religion that produces the violence, it's the extreme violence that these people have lived under that produces traumatized, unstable minds that are prone to becoming fanatic via whatever dominant fervor surrounds them. Whether it's Islam or some kind of state nationalism or some kind of philosophical ideal, whatever it is that gives them a clear conscience to kill those who have harmed them, that's the banner they carry.
The challenge to humanity is to break away from the "us vs them" mentality. Those we call terrorists are still humans like us. None of us can say how we would react if we were brought up surrounded by the horrors that these folks have. That is not an apology, only a perspective. Healing can only come when we truly understand the reasons why these events are happening and not write it all off to religious fanaticism.
At the end of the video embedded in the article the announcer explains that Obsession was not the best performing scent, that that scent is being kept secret. In fact, Obsession doesn't work as well in the wild as it does in zoos (or so they say).
Meaning, a hateful violent response from people whose sense of power is threatened by the truth.
I live in Chicago. East Rogers Park, at the most northeast end of the city. I live on a Lake Michigan beach and have gorgeous views of water (east) and coastline (south). The building I live in has charm, character and a generous community. I pay a modest rent for a spacious one bedroom place. Best of all, it's quiet.
On a hot July day like today, I look out my window and see beach goers, kayaks, sailboats, catamarans, and the like. It's like living on a resort.
During the winters, the snow and ice over the lake is breathtaking, and the sun rises are magnificent.
I've lived in parts of the city I wouldn't ever want to visit again. But there are areas of Chicago that are real gems. It's not all greedy politicians (fuck Rahm) and pollution and crime.
The parking meter disaster was Daley's fuckup. Now Rahm has contributed to the blood-squeeze of the citizenry. Chicago's not a perfect place and I would have been long gone had I not found the place where I live now. But Chicago still has some of the best music, food, and ethnic diversity you'll find anywhere. Don't go by the headlines to find out what Chicago has to offer. Dig a little deeper.
Maybe humanity will finally be motivated to figure out that mass economic stability and security comes from serving each other instead of rigidly serving the self, because serving others is enlightened self interest.
One can hope.
Silly human, there's no sound in space.
CSS still readable in 500 years? I think this guy has an over-inflated sense of personal legacy.
Pardon my ire, but what the fuck should I or anyone else care about how much fear the government thinks we should feel? Are people really that stupid that they'll entrust their emotional response to the advice of government and media? Maybe they should be advising us on the facts and not trying to control our reactions. "Trust us, little children, everything's under control, no need to panic -- until we tell you otherwise."
Tired of that bullshit.
Your point is well taken, although I can see that the watch has value with regard to the fitness apps. Since the watch can monitor your heartbeat, it can give you stats and make recommendations that a phone can't. The fitness apps Apple is providing look very impressive. Also, little features like tapping your wrist to tell you when to make a right or left turn while walking are nice to have. Over time other uses for the watch will likely appear that can't be replicated on a phone. Not to mention it is still something of a convenience to glance at your wrist rather than pull a phone out of your pocket.
Clearly this device is for people with the disposable income to afford it, it's certainly not a must-have technology for most people. But it seems reasonable to expect it'll be popular with the rich and Apple faithful.
Apple took away the people's need for watches -- and now is giving it back again.
A professional marimba is typically made of Rosewood, which is a very expensive wood (due to restrictions on its export). It also requires a high degree of craftsmanship to build. The sound of a marimba is very different from a xylophone, with long, rich sustained notes.
Check it out for yourself.
Nope, didn't know that. Mea culpa. I wasn't paying attention to MS back then, apart from the Jackson trials.
The public beta Apple started was started in 2001. That's all I said. No trend was meant to be implied.
I may have been wrong about MS getting the idea from Apple, though. I'll piss off on that point.
The linked Ars Technica review pretty much only looks at surface level details, like icons, window buttons, menus, etc. Doesn't say anything about functionality, speed, or lower level concerns.
And this line is misleading:
Microsoft got the idea from Apple, who started their public beta program with the first version of OS X back in 2001.