I haven't weighed in on the Eich thing yet because I couldn't quite put my finger on what exactly was giving me an uncomfortableness about it. I support gay marriage, I'd question why anyone would be insane enough to actually want to get married, but if they want it why not.
What burns about the whole affair is that the relevant parties had their say, the people voted, and that should be that. Instead we've got vengeance seeking from those in favour of gay marriage, making lists, hunting people down and persecuting them by whatever means are available. In other words, McCarthyism.
Honestly you can hardly blame them, I finally read the summary on the last story after posting a half dozen comments and found that a link I'd spent five minutes googling was the first link up there. Scanning quickly over the other comments I found that three other people had "discovered" this same link and been modded up for it.
Once I figure out how to make relevant comments without even reading the other comments I will truly be a max level slashdotter.
I fail to see how you fail to see what I was responding to, specifically "You're missing the real picture. GNOME is running out of money because they spent it on stupid outreach programs for women and "trans-women"". This does appear to be the case. The rest of the comment is indeed misogynistic and irritating.
I'd have gone the opposite direction, rather than the lame Geordi LaForge effort, make it an ostentatious monocle, cyberpunk or even steampunk style. Offer a variety of skins to suit the early adopter market (mostly nerds) and bling that tech out.
As charming as your characterisation of/.s membership is, I'm more interested in whether or not there is any truth to the assertion that Gnome's funding was eaten up by outreach programmes. I managed to track down this article, so there does seem to be a certain amount of legitimacy to the claim.
Yeah I agree with this. I think it was Zimbabwe (?) where they threw out the white farmers and gave the farms to people who just didn't know anything about it, and as a result the agricultural sector basically collapsed. There's a whole lot of skill to farming.
That seems a bit oversimplified. Just because there's a link between autocratic societies and war/stagnation doesn't neccessarily mean that super redundancy is much better. Some things work best when lots of resources are focused on them, and having a strong executive can be very effective if the roles also come with accountability, which is of course where autocrats and many politicians fall down.
In order for a protest movement to be effective it needs to convince people who make decisions that it is effective. It needn't actually be disruptive, just give the impression that it is. I think a carefully targeted online protest can be quite powerful as long as people believe it's powerful. That means appearances in the mainstream media, mentions at weekly meetings, that sort of thing. Petitions at the petition site are just viewed as a pressure valve by those in power.
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy. If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
Personally I reckon that human activity probably does play a reasonably large part in accelerating climate change that was happening anyway (although 99% sets off my bullshit meter given that we're in an interglacial period), or pushing it over the point where we won't return to the next ie age, but in order to address it we'd have to get developing titans like India and China to play along, and good luck with that.
The best policy for the forward thinking nation is perhaps to simply prepare for flooding and adverse weather conditions.
I'd like to see a much bigger focus on artisan trades, leatherworking, metal sculpting, custom clothing and the like. There's a huge untapped aftermarket for all those fancy new electronics in terms of accessories. Etsy.com is kinda touching on it but things like this are two parts awesome one part epic.
According to this viewpoint every organised religion is to be respected, or at least soberly considered.
I'm not saying they're wrong neccessarily, just that the expected timescale of their ambitions does not add merit or weight to their arguments. Especially if there are tangible social and career benefits to be gained from backing a position today, or from the other direction possible adverse effects should they choose not to sign the petition.
There's a lot to unpack here but I think I understand what you're saying.The toxically rigid gender roles you're describing didn't get invented in the 1950's. They've existed with minor variations for centuries.
Not really no. The historical reality is that families, generations of families lived under the same roof or in close knit communities for most of history.
The reason the 1950's look especially bad is because they were at the end of a long static period, just before the 1960's-70's when things started to get dramatically better.
Better except for the lot of men you mean. Those gosh darned suicide rates again, not to mention graduation rates, criminal sentences, lifespans, and on and on...
Stephen J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a good book on the subject. He talks more about racism than sexism, but it'll still give you a good picture of the kind of dynamic that was in play.
Oh for pity's sake. Sexism is not racism, women are not a minority and are not now nor ever were oppressed.
"I'm sorry, you don't think it's a science...why, exactly?"
Mostly because of the increasingly shitty state of society since "social scientists" first introduced the "nuclear family" in the 1950s which led to stressed out men working themselves to death and frustrated housewives doping themselves up on valium to deal with it. The "social science" response to which was demonising men and invalidating women (oh gosh male suicides outnumber female by five to one you don't say, why might that be). If the intention of a science is to analyse problems and produce better outcomes, as it generally is, or even just analyse problems, the soft squishy spongelike social sciences are abject failures on a scale unimagined in previous eras.
Science involves falsifiable theories, objective evidence, empirical research, NOT starting out with a hypothesis and discarding all of the alternatives that don't fit your agenda.
But hey, you keep on linkin' to wikipedia, home of the objective.
we can't even make lighters that can be refilled more than a few times because we're too greedy
What? Aside from the rest of the misanthropic rant, zippos work just fine for generations. They're terrible for other reasons, but you can get butane and other lighters of all sorts with incredible durability, not to mention a six inch firesteel I own which I fully expect to outlive me despite being used regularly. These things aren't cheap, but if you're looking for high quality at a low cost that's a whole other set of issues...
Speak for yourself champ. I've had numerous women admit not just infidelities but actively criminal abuse of the immigration system to me on facebook for some fucked up reason, which was duly reported to the relevant authorities. Long live facebook's long lived memory!
So now we're comparing the experiences of women to the experiences of black people in the urban US, are we?
Saying that all of one gender gets treated uniformly the same is pretty simplistic. A tall, athletic, handsome and charismatic man in his 20s will be treated completely differently (and likely objectified, even fetishised) in various situations to a short, awkward, overweight balding man in his late 40s. A wealthy billionaire will get treated very differently to a Filipino man working over smoke mountain looking for roofing materials for his lean-to.
Why then are there no calls to include their voices on various projects? Given the economic disparities that exist, shouldn't there be consultations of people living in poverty, as they constitute a significant percentage of the population and have zero representation in most software development groups?
This is a bit like the way that women, despite being in the majority, obstinately still vote for male politicians much to the frustration of feminists who want to turn the world into a juvenile playground where boys have cooties. Women identify themselves first as human beings, not as women as a class (which would probably be somewhere behind their nationality and their career), and use their voting power not to gain some female perspective but to put the best candidate that best represents their views into office.
Calls to include women simply because they are women are blatantly sexist, in fact.
Wil's alright, the hardcore surf-the-web-using-lynx brigade don't like him or anyone else that can't solder a circuit board using spittle and two random household items, but he's got a certain cachet among the midrange nerdies who grew up on ST:tNG.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't weighed in on the Eich thing yet because I couldn't quite put my finger on what exactly was giving me an uncomfortableness about it. I support gay marriage, I'd question why anyone would be insane enough to actually want to get married, but if they want it why not.
What burns about the whole affair is that the relevant parties had their say, the people voted, and that should be that. Instead we've got vengeance seeking from those in favour of gay marriage, making lists, hunting people down and persecuting them by whatever means are available. In other words, McCarthyism.
Fuck that.
I didn't say it was.
Honestly you can hardly blame them, I finally read the summary on the last story after posting a half dozen comments and found that a link I'd spent five minutes googling was the first link up there. Scanning quickly over the other comments I found that three other people had "discovered" this same link and been modded up for it.
Once I figure out how to make relevant comments without even reading the other comments I will truly be a max level slashdotter.
I'm losing track, is it the Koch brothers or cultural Marxism which are doing the rounds on youtube as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man today?
I fail to see how you fail to see what I was responding to, specifically "You're missing the real picture. GNOME is running out of money because they spent it on stupid outreach programs for women and "trans-women"". This does appear to be the case. The rest of the comment is indeed misogynistic and irritating.
I'd have gone the opposite direction, rather than the lame Geordi LaForge effort, make it an ostentatious monocle, cyberpunk or even steampunk style. Offer a variety of skins to suit the early adopter market (mostly nerds) and bling that tech out.
As charming as your characterisation of /.s membership is, I'm more interested in whether or not there is any truth to the assertion that Gnome's funding was eaten up by outreach programmes. I managed to track down this article, so there does seem to be a certain amount of legitimacy to the claim.
Yeah I agree with this. I think it was Zimbabwe (?) where they threw out the white farmers and gave the farms to people who just didn't know anything about it, and as a result the agricultural sector basically collapsed. There's a whole lot of skill to farming.
That seems a bit oversimplified. Just because there's a link between autocratic societies and war/stagnation doesn't neccessarily mean that super redundancy is much better. Some things work best when lots of resources are focused on them, and having a strong executive can be very effective if the roles also come with accountability, which is of course where autocrats and many politicians fall down.
In order for a protest movement to be effective it needs to convince people who make decisions that it is effective. It needn't actually be disruptive, just give the impression that it is. I think a carefully targeted online protest can be quite powerful as long as people believe it's powerful. That means appearances in the mainstream media, mentions at weekly meetings, that sort of thing. Petitions at the petition site are just viewed as a pressure valve by those in power.
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy. If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
Personally I reckon that human activity probably does play a reasonably large part in accelerating climate change that was happening anyway (although 99% sets off my bullshit meter given that we're in an interglacial period), or pushing it over the point where we won't return to the next ie age, but in order to address it we'd have to get developing titans like India and China to play along, and good luck with that.
The best policy for the forward thinking nation is perhaps to simply prepare for flooding and adverse weather conditions.
I can't watch that show any more. If you know why you won't need to ask, if you don't you're better off not knowing.
I'd like to see a much bigger focus on artisan trades, leatherworking, metal sculpting, custom clothing and the like. There's a huge untapped aftermarket for all those fancy new electronics in terms of accessories. Etsy.com is kinda touching on it but things like this are two parts awesome one part epic.
According to this viewpoint every organised religion is to be respected, or at least soberly considered.
I'm not saying they're wrong neccessarily, just that the expected timescale of their ambitions does not add merit or weight to their arguments. Especially if there are tangible social and career benefits to be gained from backing a position today, or from the other direction possible adverse effects should they choose not to sign the petition.
Oh you and your facts.
So much for #cancelcolbert and the looney tune behind it.
There's a lot to unpack here but I think I understand what you're saying.The toxically rigid gender roles you're describing didn't get invented in the 1950's. They've existed with minor variations for centuries.
Not really no. The historical reality is that families, generations of families lived under the same roof or in close knit communities for most of history.
The reason the 1950's look especially bad is because they were at the end of a long static period, just before the 1960's-70's when things started to get dramatically better.
Better except for the lot of men you mean. Those gosh darned suicide rates again, not to mention graduation rates, criminal sentences, lifespans, and on and on...
Stephen J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a good book on the subject. He talks more about racism than sexism, but it'll still give you a good picture of the kind of dynamic that was in play.
Oh for pity's sake. Sexism is not racism, women are not a minority and are not now nor ever were oppressed.
Just because you can't make something happen every single time doesn't mean it's completely worthless.
It does make it not science, however.
"I'm sorry, you don't think it's a science ...why, exactly?"
Mostly because of the increasingly shitty state of society since "social scientists" first introduced the "nuclear family" in the 1950s which led to stressed out men working themselves to death and frustrated housewives doping themselves up on valium to deal with it. The "social science" response to which was demonising men and invalidating women (oh gosh male suicides outnumber female by five to one you don't say, why might that be). If the intention of a science is to analyse problems and produce better outcomes, as it generally is, or even just analyse problems, the soft squishy spongelike social sciences are abject failures on a scale unimagined in previous eras.
Science involves falsifiable theories, objective evidence, empirical research, NOT starting out with a hypothesis and discarding all of the alternatives that don't fit your agenda.
But hey, you keep on linkin' to wikipedia, home of the objective.
Laugh with me friends as we laugh at the laughable laughableness of laughablenessness!
Science!
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hahahaha!
we can't even make lighters that can be refilled more than a few times because we're too greedy
What? Aside from the rest of the misanthropic rant, zippos work just fine for generations. They're terrible for other reasons, but you can get butane and other lighters of all sorts with incredible durability, not to mention a six inch firesteel I own which I fully expect to outlive me despite being used regularly. These things aren't cheap, but if you're looking for high quality at a low cost that's a whole other set of issues...
RoK is woman hating shite. Exposing Feminism and The Anti White Knight Coalition are doing just fine, thanks.
Speak for yourself champ. I've had numerous women admit not just infidelities but actively criminal abuse of the immigration system to me on facebook for some fucked up reason, which was duly reported to the relevant authorities. Long live facebook's long lived memory!
So now we're comparing the experiences of women to the experiences of black people in the urban US, are we?
Saying that all of one gender gets treated uniformly the same is pretty simplistic. A tall, athletic, handsome and charismatic man in his 20s will be treated completely differently (and likely objectified, even fetishised) in various situations to a short, awkward, overweight balding man in his late 40s. A wealthy billionaire will get treated very differently to a Filipino man working over smoke mountain looking for roofing materials for his lean-to.
Why then are there no calls to include their voices on various projects? Given the economic disparities that exist, shouldn't there be consultations of people living in poverty, as they constitute a significant percentage of the population and have zero representation in most software development groups?
This is a bit like the way that women, despite being in the majority, obstinately still vote for male politicians much to the frustration of feminists who want to turn the world into a juvenile playground where boys have cooties. Women identify themselves first as human beings, not as women as a class (which would probably be somewhere behind their nationality and their career), and use their voting power not to gain some female perspective but to put the best candidate that best represents their views into office.
Calls to include women simply because they are women are blatantly sexist, in fact.
Wil's alright, the hardcore surf-the-web-using-lynx brigade don't like him or anyone else that can't solder a circuit board using spittle and two random household items, but he's got a certain cachet among the midrange nerdies who grew up on ST:tNG.