Once again Slashdot shows why it's design is genius.
SE displays everyone's rep publicly, and so becomes an MMORPG where people try to game the system as much as possible while hampering other people's efforts to compete with them. It also leads to low quality answers being posted just because, like Slashdot, first post often gets more attention and sets the tone for the whole thing.
Slashdot keeps karma mostly private. You can kind of infer it by seeing if people get a karma bonus, but it's pretty opaque. Even users can't see the actual number, just a vague indicator. Back in the data people used to karma whore by posting the text of TFA, but now Slashdotting isn't a thing any more that's quite rare.
Counter-question: Why wouldn't people reveal their gender or other attributes online? On Stack Exchange a lot of people use their real names. If there is a user called Deepak most people will make assumptions about their gender and race from that.
Keep in mind that this applies to Stack Exchange as well, and on some SE sites questions often involve the gender or race or class or disability of the users. Workplace and Interpersonal are good examples.
Even on Stack Overflow, people often use their real names. SO is also a job site now, so people are inclined to use their real names rather than some pseudonym that might put off potential employers.
Yes, quite often it is apparent what someone's gender or skin tone or disability is on SE. Aside from the not uncommon use of real names over there, on some sites like Workplace and Interpersonal these attributes are often quite relevant to the question itself.
The statement that some groups are particularly affected by this is based on their yearly survey data, going back many years.
I agree, it is distortion, but then again so is the clipping. It's digital aliasing, a sampling error due to the signal being beyond the maximum range of the digital representation.
So actually the smoothing that vinyl/valves produces could reduce the amount of error through a kind of anti-aliasing, similar to anti-aliasing that some DACs use. It can seem counter-intuitive, but adding a certain amount of noise is a common way to reduce overall error.
The Wikipedia article on dithering has more info.
Anyway, the bottom line is that once the audio has been poorly mastered you already have distortion that can't be completely removed by any means, and then it's really down to personal preference if you prefer digital distortion or more analogue distortion.
Sometimes they do, the digital version being the SACD or DVD-A edition that costs 5x as much.
It is odd though, isn't it? Clearly there is demand, but like how Lucas won't sell you the original version of Star Wars sometimes they just don't want to.
People have realized that if they go and earn big bucks for a few years and then bail to somewhere cheaper, that mega salary will help them get above the going rate anywhere. Recruiters don't look at a $200k salary and think "oh but that was Silicon Valley, this person will take $50k out here and maintain the same lifestyle", they think "well I had better offer at least 100k to get someone like that!"
The dynamic range compression required to stop the needle jumping out of the groove plus the non linear frequency response of the needle itself and the also non linear way the actual dynamic range changes as the needle gets closer to the centre (and so is effectively moving slower) give vinyl a particular feel/sound which is what some people like. They fool themselves into thinking its better reproduction of the original source that digital - its anything but.
In theory yes, but in practice CDs are capable of reproducing very highly compressed audio that would make the needle jump on vinyl. So the CD ends up being far more compressed than the vinyl release, and the vinyl sounds more dynamic.
Sometimes the digital master for the vinyl version leaks out, and is highly prized by fans. Sometimes the Japanese special editions have less compression too, because for some reason that market prefers it or is more willing to buy re-masters.
The original master is often made with CDs in mind. CDs have more dynamic range than vinyl, and can have more loudness enhancement applied. If your recording is too loud the needle will skip out of the track on a vinyl record, so lazy sound engineers just apply some filtering and send the file off to be duplicated.
Good engineers do a proper re-mixing of the source material, which often ends up with the vinyl release sounding better because it is less compressed and more dynamic.
Vinyl often sounds warmer because the master recording has heavy clipping, and vinyl smooths it out a lot. Same with valves for amplification, especially with things like overdriven guitars.
Toilets are actually harder to do than electricity, which is why electricity happened first. For electricity you can use above-ground wires and local generation system. Burying pipes is much more labour intensive and expensive, and so is finding and fixing the leaks.
Maybe there is more going on here than we assume. If the French court's ruling had been ignored it would have just added more pressure to take control of the domain name system off an American private company.
Or maybe Web.com just didn't want to get sued by the French government.
Actually that is an example of male gaze too. The term is somewhat misnamed now.
This scene is not in the book, it was an original one created for the BBC adaptation. It is intended to establish Darcy as being physically desirable to the ladies who have an interest in him, which in the book is done through dialogue and the character's thoughts. It's also some titillation for the viewer, although it's not clear if it was intended that way.
Anyway, Wikipedia has a long article on the male gaze which explains it quite well. Personally I think we need a better name for it though.
And it's the same that I listed: "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive".
No, being physically strong, unsentimental and assertive is not toxic masculinity. It's the expectation that men must be those things to be masculine that is toxic.
demand that outcomes between men and women (at the CEO level, as movie directors, as whatever) should still be equal
They are asking for equality of opportunity, with the assumption that it will lead to more women in those roles, based on how it has done so in other areas in the past.
In the past you have said that women are simply less interested in CS, hence the relatively low numbers studying it. Yet you don't seem to have considered that men could simply be less interested in college and prefer to do more practical training or simply start work.
Note that I don't think that is the case, I'm just pointing out that you need to apply the same logic to both groups or explain why you didn't.
That is how the majority of jobs are paid in the UK. Often there are pay scales for a job, so people can get increases based on time spent in the role, but basically everyone gets paid the same for that job.
In jobs where people do negotiate salary the company usually states a range up front. Say they offer 50-60k for the role, and then the candidate can make their case based on experience and the like, but is extremely unlikely to get more than 60k. I find it's helpful because it helps filter companies that definitely can't afford me or who are just hoping to get someone with lots of experience for cheap, and as we all know whoever says a number first loses.
The focus on the selection of directors is a bit of a red herring. Directors come up through film school and independently, making small features and building up a reputation until they get to direct big budget movies. Most of the problem is in that feeder system.
In any case, it's more of a systemic problem. As I said about Snyder and Bay, they get picked to direct because they produce a particularly crappy but profitable type of movie, rather than because they are actually good directors.
Well, Synder is kinda failing at the moment, and it will be interesting to see how much he can fail before they replace him. On paper it seems like a no-brainer to replace him with Patty Jenkins or at least someone not so obsessed with bad CGI and Gal Gadot's arse.
something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity"
Your link does not support this hypothesis. It talks extensively about what toxic masculinity is, and as someone who wants men's lib I'm very much aware of it thanks, but it does not claim that the differences between men and women, or more specific between people who have a penis and those who do not, is caused by it.
First you have the notion that men are better leaders and thus more suited to being directors. If you don't believe this is true then scroll up a bit and look at some of the comments on this story, e.g. by ooloorie. So women have to try harder to prove themselves, because they have to get past that additional assumption.
As for the movie industry specifically, Hollywood is quite conservative when it comes to funding movies. That's why we get so many sequels and re-makes. Tried and tested formulas. So having a female director on say an action film like Wonder Woman or a comedy like Ghostbusters is seen as an extra risk. And when that risk doesn't pay off, for a guy it's just a case of it being a bad movie but for women it's often a case of it being because they are a woman and women just aren't funny or can't do action.
Compare Wonder Woman with Justice League, or really any of Snyder's work. Snyder gets work because the movies he produces are full of macho bullshit and he points the camera at Gal Gadot's arse. Yet those movies are a lot, lot worse than Wonder Woman was. Justice League would probably have been a lot better if Patty Jenkins had directed it.
Bay is the same. Look at the Transformers series, it's just a pathetic mix of half dressed and sometimes underage girls, explosions, awful racial stereotypes and flag waving. But that kind of lowbrow crap pulls in audiences.
Cameron is right, guys like Snyder and Bay get work because they produce this toxic crap, but if we want sci-fi to become more mainstream and start winning mainstream awards we need fewer of them and more good directors. Unfortunately Hollywood is more inclined to go for safe but low quality sequels and explosion-fests than take a risk on making a good movie.
That's actually the exact opposite of what mainstream feminism thinks.
First you have to let go of these gender stereotypes and start looking at people as individuals. Then understand that traits associated with any particular concept, such as leadership, are not the sole possession of one gender.
Also, having a penis or not is irrelevant to gender anyway.
The evidence presented in court suggests that claim was a lie. Microsoft's blog post has PDF versions of the emails submitted as evidence here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on...
Note how we talks about it providing a steady source of income, and how the sale of 8,000 discs netted him $28,000. That suggests he was wholesaling them for $3.50 to his friend.
The most damning email is the one where he tells his friend about how hard it is to spot that his discs are fake, so good is the forgery.
He clearly was not doing the community a favour here, he was profiting off discs he passed off as genuine.
The guy convicted wasn't just burning a few discs. He had 80,000 manufactured in China. Not CDRs, proper printed discs with labels made to look like the real thing. And then he tried to pass them off as real to customers. He expected a tidy profit from this investment.
Had he just been a good guy making discs for people who lost theirs he would have been fine. And Microsoft even makes the discs available for free download on their site, at least for Windows 7 and later (7 being the oldest version still supported).
That's not what he did though. He was in it for the money, and was happy to deceive people and make a profit from that deception. Regardless of the legality or morality of duplicating freely available discs, it's the fraud aspect that screwed him.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again Slashdot shows why it's design is genius.
SE displays everyone's rep publicly, and so becomes an MMORPG where people try to game the system as much as possible while hampering other people's efforts to compete with them. It also leads to low quality answers being posted just because, like Slashdot, first post often gets more attention and sets the tone for the whole thing.
Slashdot keeps karma mostly private. You can kind of infer it by seeing if people get a karma bonus, but it's pretty opaque. Even users can't see the actual number, just a vague indicator. Back in the data people used to karma whore by posting the text of TFA, but now Slashdotting isn't a thing any more that's quite rare.
Counter-question: Why wouldn't people reveal their gender or other attributes online? On Stack Exchange a lot of people use their real names. If there is a user called Deepak most people will make assumptions about their gender and race from that.
Keep in mind that this applies to Stack Exchange as well, and on some SE sites questions often involve the gender or race or class or disability of the users. Workplace and Interpersonal are good examples.
Even on Stack Overflow, people often use their real names. SO is also a job site now, so people are inclined to use their real names rather than some pseudonym that might put off potential employers.
Yes, quite often it is apparent what someone's gender or skin tone or disability is on SE. Aside from the not uncommon use of real names over there, on some sites like Workplace and Interpersonal these attributes are often quite relevant to the question itself.
The statement that some groups are particularly affected by this is based on their yearly survey data, going back many years.
I agree, it is distortion, but then again so is the clipping. It's digital aliasing, a sampling error due to the signal being beyond the maximum range of the digital representation.
So actually the smoothing that vinyl/valves produces could reduce the amount of error through a kind of anti-aliasing, similar to anti-aliasing that some DACs use. It can seem counter-intuitive, but adding a certain amount of noise is a common way to reduce overall error.
The Wikipedia article on dithering has more info.
Anyway, the bottom line is that once the audio has been poorly mastered you already have distortion that can't be completely removed by any means, and then it's really down to personal preference if you prefer digital distortion or more analogue distortion.
Sometimes they do, the digital version being the SACD or DVD-A edition that costs 5x as much.
It is odd though, isn't it? Clearly there is demand, but like how Lucas won't sell you the original version of Star Wars sometimes they just don't want to.
In reality, it isn't society that has these expectations, it is women that have these expectations of men.
That's a meaningless distinction. Half of society is women, women live in and are shaped by society. Two sides of the same coin.
It just suits you to frame it that way so that you can blame women and biology, which is rather unhelpful.
People have realized that if they go and earn big bucks for a few years and then bail to somewhere cheaper, that mega salary will help them get above the going rate anywhere. Recruiters don't look at a $200k salary and think "oh but that was Silicon Valley, this person will take $50k out here and maintain the same lifestyle", they think "well I had better offer at least 100k to get someone like that!"
The dynamic range compression required to stop the needle jumping out of the groove plus the non linear frequency response of the needle itself and the also non linear way the actual dynamic range changes as the needle gets closer to the centre (and so is effectively moving slower) give vinyl a particular feel/sound which is what some people like. They fool themselves into thinking its better reproduction of the original source that digital - its anything but.
In theory yes, but in practice CDs are capable of reproducing very highly compressed audio that would make the needle jump on vinyl. So the CD ends up being far more compressed than the vinyl release, and the vinyl sounds more dynamic.
Sometimes the digital master for the vinyl version leaks out, and is highly prized by fans. Sometimes the Japanese special editions have less compression too, because for some reason that market prefers it or is more willing to buy re-masters.
You are both rights.
The original master is often made with CDs in mind. CDs have more dynamic range than vinyl, and can have more loudness enhancement applied. If your recording is too loud the needle will skip out of the track on a vinyl record, so lazy sound engineers just apply some filtering and send the file off to be duplicated.
Good engineers do a proper re-mixing of the source material, which often ends up with the vinyl release sounding better because it is less compressed and more dynamic.
Vinyl often sounds warmer because the master recording has heavy clipping, and vinyl smooths it out a lot. Same with valves for amplification, especially with things like overdriven guitars.
Toilets are actually harder to do than electricity, which is why electricity happened first. For electricity you can use above-ground wires and local generation system. Burying pipes is much more labour intensive and expensive, and so is finding and fixing the leaks.
Good luck to them.
Maybe there is more going on here than we assume. If the French court's ruling had been ignored it would have just added more pressure to take control of the domain name system off an American private company.
Or maybe Web.com just didn't want to get sued by the French government.
Actually that is an example of male gaze too. The term is somewhat misnamed now.
This scene is not in the book, it was an original one created for the BBC adaptation. It is intended to establish Darcy as being physically desirable to the ladies who have an interest in him, which in the book is done through dialogue and the character's thoughts. It's also some titillation for the viewer, although it's not clear if it was intended that way.
Anyway, Wikipedia has a long article on the male gaze which explains it quite well. Personally I think we need a better name for it though.
And it's the same that I listed: "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive".
No, being physically strong, unsentimental and assertive is not toxic masculinity. It's the expectation that men must be those things to be masculine that is toxic.
demand that outcomes between men and women (at the CEO level, as movie directors, as whatever) should still be equal
They are asking for equality of opportunity, with the assumption that it will lead to more women in those roles, based on how it has done so in other areas in the past.
In the past you have said that women are simply less interested in CS, hence the relatively low numbers studying it. Yet you don't seem to have considered that men could simply be less interested in college and prefer to do more practical training or simply start work.
Note that I don't think that is the case, I'm just pointing out that you need to apply the same logic to both groups or explain why you didn't.
'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate'
That is how the majority of jobs are paid in the UK. Often there are pay scales for a job, so people can get increases based on time spent in the role, but basically everyone gets paid the same for that job.
In jobs where people do negotiate salary the company usually states a range up front. Say they offer 50-60k for the role, and then the candidate can make their case based on experience and the like, but is extremely unlikely to get more than 60k. I find it's helpful because it helps filter companies that definitely can't afford me or who are just hoping to get someone with lots of experience for cheap, and as we all know whoever says a number first loses.
The focus on the selection of directors is a bit of a red herring. Directors come up through film school and independently, making small features and building up a reputation until they get to direct big budget movies. Most of the problem is in that feeder system.
In any case, it's more of a systemic problem. As I said about Snyder and Bay, they get picked to direct because they produce a particularly crappy but profitable type of movie, rather than because they are actually good directors.
Well, Synder is kinda failing at the moment, and it will be interesting to see how much he can fail before they replace him. On paper it seems like a no-brainer to replace him with Patty Jenkins or at least someone not so obsessed with bad CGI and Gal Gadot's arse.
something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity"
Your link does not support this hypothesis. It talks extensively about what toxic masculinity is, and as someone who wants men's lib I'm very much aware of it thanks, but it does not claim that the differences between men and women, or more specific between people who have a penis and those who do not, is caused by it.
Okay, here are some examples.
First you have the notion that men are better leaders and thus more suited to being directors. If you don't believe this is true then scroll up a bit and look at some of the comments on this story, e.g. by ooloorie. So women have to try harder to prove themselves, because they have to get past that additional assumption.
As for the movie industry specifically, Hollywood is quite conservative when it comes to funding movies. That's why we get so many sequels and re-makes. Tried and tested formulas. So having a female director on say an action film like Wonder Woman or a comedy like Ghostbusters is seen as an extra risk. And when that risk doesn't pay off, for a guy it's just a case of it being a bad movie but for women it's often a case of it being because they are a woman and women just aren't funny or can't do action.
Zack Snyder. Michael Bay.
Compare Wonder Woman with Justice League, or really any of Snyder's work. Snyder gets work because the movies he produces are full of macho bullshit and he points the camera at Gal Gadot's arse. Yet those movies are a lot, lot worse than Wonder Woman was. Justice League would probably have been a lot better if Patty Jenkins had directed it.
Bay is the same. Look at the Transformers series, it's just a pathetic mix of half dressed and sometimes underage girls, explosions, awful racial stereotypes and flag waving. But that kind of lowbrow crap pulls in audiences.
Cameron is right, guys like Snyder and Bay get work because they produce this toxic crap, but if we want sci-fi to become more mainstream and start winning mainstream awards we need fewer of them and more good directors. Unfortunately Hollywood is more inclined to go for safe but low quality sequels and explosion-fests than take a risk on making a good movie.
That's actually the exact opposite of what mainstream feminism thinks.
First you have to let go of these gender stereotypes and start looking at people as individuals. Then understand that traits associated with any particular concept, such as leadership, are not the sole possession of one gender.
Also, having a penis or not is irrelevant to gender anyway.
The evidence presented in court suggests that claim was a lie. Microsoft's blog post has PDF versions of the emails submitted as evidence here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on...
Note how we talks about it providing a steady source of income, and how the sale of 8,000 discs netted him $28,000. That suggests he was wholesaling them for $3.50 to his friend.
The most damning email is the one where he tells his friend about how hard it is to spot that his discs are fake, so good is the forgery.
He clearly was not doing the community a favour here, he was profiting off discs he passed off as genuine.
It's got nothing to do with licences. The discs were pretending to be something they were not (genuine Dell products), which is fraud.
Here's what actually happened.
The guy convicted wasn't just burning a few discs. He had 80,000 manufactured in China. Not CDRs, proper printed discs with labels made to look like the real thing. And then he tried to pass them off as real to customers. He expected a tidy profit from this investment.
Had he just been a good guy making discs for people who lost theirs he would have been fine. And Microsoft even makes the discs available for free download on their site, at least for Windows 7 and later (7 being the oldest version still supported).
That's not what he did though. He was in it for the money, and was happy to deceive people and make a profit from that deception. Regardless of the legality or morality of duplicating freely available discs, it's the fraud aspect that screwed him.