I can see an argument that a person's device is effectively part of their brain or their body. I own it, I control it. Also. Both my device and my body can catch a virus.
A bunch of anti-vax types on my FB page were posting articles about how schoolchildren showed that plants that were grown with microwave water didn't grow, with side-by-side illustrations.
I've been a professional programmer for ~15 years now; What you've said here strikes me as fairly odd.
Object Oriented Programming is nothing mystical. "Associate methods with your data structures by type." There's half of it. "Now inherit the methods in subtypes." There's the other half of it. We could talk about interfaces and polymorphism as well; It doesn't take long: "You can plug a lot of different things into the wall to get electricity, if we share the interface to the wall plug." People have been talking about that in different ways, for at least a thousand years.
Technical thought is broad and deep. Back in the early 80s, people were talking about "Structured Programming," (within the "procedural" world,) and they really hammered in the concepts of encapsulation and cohesion -- much before the popularity of OOP (itself derived from Alan Kay's ideas) in the 1990's. If there are deep ideas in Object Oriented programming, the deep ideas are ideas that share across technical domains of all kinds.
So I don't think "Object Orientated Programming" is any kind of real barrier.
What robots cannot be programmed to do, is answer the question of: "How do we want to live?"
You have assumed that humans have a specific purpose: propagating genes and having kids.
I don't see it that way. Yes, we have a sex drive, but there is no such encoding in the mind that says: "Your purpose is to breed."
I wake up in the morning; I have a million more desires than "just breed." Some of these desires include: I want to live in an enlightened society. I want clean air and water and plants and life. I want a society where people genuinely like one another and grow and learn and develop. More ambitiously, I'd like people to be able to live longer lives. I'd like people with self-discipline and care. I'd like people who want to do what is right, and feel confident that they can do it. Also sex: I want a world that is much more sexual.
But all together, this is a bit more than just, "just breed." We have hearts. In particular, YOU have a heart. You might be depressed in your outlook, but the fact remains. You have a heart.
You've said: "Human beings are not special." I don't see the point of your statement; What does it matter if human beings are special or not? I care more about the kind of life and world that you are wanting to make.
If you're disappointed with how things are going, that disappointment requires a sense that things could be some other way -- the "appointment" that has not been made.
Now, given the normally U.S. libertarian bent of the Slashdot audience, it is understandable that an outright British Socialist writer like Brunner would get short shrift,...
I know, right? The U.S. Libertarians were all too busy citing George Orwell, 1984..!
I am very curious about the rational for why OpenMW switched from D to C++. The FAQ points to this page for an explanation, which, at 2012-07-03 8:16 PM Pacific Time, I, an outsider to the effort, do not have access to.
You are correct. Every relationship is different, and every individual is different. But there are some generalities that can be made. For example, we are talking about men and women in programming. A great many of the men here are "pushing back," arguing for the purpose of keeping their territory.
Are ALL the men doing that? No, of course not. But there are forces at work here, there are real lives being lived here.
Intimacy is a mixed word, too. It can mean a lot of things. Here I am focusing on sexual intimacy -- I think this is where most ("a great many") men feel locked out.
And I will push it back further: Even men who are happily married -- even in relationships between men and women, where there is no plan to escalate to sex, -- there is still the push and pull of desire in (say) the workplace. There is an intimacy even in this field. Just because a man's sex life with his wife has dwindled to near nothing, and he has given up on sex with anyone else, -- it doesn't mean that there aren't feelings, and that these dynamics are alive and at work within him and her and the society.
I believe that sexual desire is like a nervous system within the social organism. It is always at play. When a group of men and women meet together for purpose A -- something like "making money together" (at a company,) or "going on a picnic" (at a gathering of friends) or "going to the movies" -- wherever there are men and women (or more generally: a "sexual landscape," to include the LGBTx,) -- there are always TWO channels. Channel "A" is the explicit, stated purpose, and then there is always, ALWAYS, Channel "B": the sexual nervous system. The networks of desire, shyness, bravado, temptation, hope, sadness, at play in the sexual realm.
I've gone a long way from your comment, but what I want to say is that "intimacy" is a large field. 2 people who don't even speak to each other, -- just see each other on the bus every now and then -- can (and often DO) have an intimate relationship. So that "intimacy" is vast.
And it's so obvious, right? Yes, you have translated well --
-- except for two things: 1. the judgement, one, and 2. -- (possibly) -- the shame.
There is a notion that men should be able to just "figure out" how to "get laid." That it's a man's job and duty to figure out how to fight the good fight to be smooth. That he needs to toughen up, and "just learn" somehow how to get women to want to have sex with him. Or perhaps it's impossible for him. Or perhaps he needs to learn how to dominate better.
There is nothing in such a man's life telling him that women do in fact already desire him. Rather, there is "faulting," that you have given an example of. Now he's a bad person, or a lazy person, because -- "hey, it's easy." But it's not easy to navigate sexual intimacy, and, further, -- he's not a bad person. He just isn't successful in love. The man and the woman haven't found out how to intimately relate, that's all.
It isn't a crime. And it also isn't his fault.
There are courses teaching men how to pick up. There is the pick-up artist scene, and on and on. There are people who will teach you how to play games. If you look at these courses though,... You're going to find war, in the vast majority of cases. You are going to find war. It's like dropping your knife for an AK-47. You'll find success, of course. You can take out tons of people to look big, and win success. But the war does not change.
What we need to do, what I really believe we need to do, is to make a culture of love.
I cannot imagine that, if we had a culture of love between men and women, (and in all the sexual worlds, LGBTx,) that men would be trying to push women out of programming, trying to keep women out of programming.
That should be our objective. That should be what we are doing. That's how we can share programming, and every other field. Whether we are men or women, here is our hope.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to unpack some of the ideas.
"The Inside of the Home" and "The Outside of the Home." I am talking about the contemporary society, but also more broadly. Inside of the home is the space literally within the walls of a house or an apartment. Women tend to be the decorators, and in charge of the children, and in charge of care activities. I am not saying that this has to be the case; I am saying that that is how it tends to be in the majority of the cases in our society. Cooking, cleaning, household chores, childrearing, arranging doctor visits, and on and on. Also, interior decoration, arrangement, placements of objects, coordination of guests, and on and on. Even in dual income families, this is generally the pattern.
"Outside the home" refers to the political arena, the realm of work (in an office, in a quarry, at a factory, etc., etc.,.) Again, I am not saying that this is the required way things need to be. I am saying that this is how it tends to be.
The current fad of "man caves" -- or, homes within the home for men -- is a demonstration of this "Inside/Outside" division.
The "intimate violence" that men experience is the control that women hold over intimate relationships, by the withholding power of the "No." Men ask, women reject. The horrors of this were detailed by a woman named Norah Vincent who is a woman who lived as a man for a full year. She detailed exactly what it felt like to be approaching women as a man, and noted for the first time what it is like to be rejected as a man. Women frequently say, "I have been rejected, I know what it's like to be rejected; Man has nothing on me," -- but Norah Vincent actually knows that there is a difference between night and day between the two.
Women individually and collectively have the power to exclude and shame a man for his sexual advances, which he and he alone is required to make. How many tears have been shed by men because of the way that the sexual relationship plays out? This does not receive enough attention.
I am not saying that women are bad, any more than noble-minded feminists are saying that men are bed. I am saying that there is something needing analysis here, if we are going to truly understand what is going on in the relationships between men and women in -- and this is one offshoot -- in the programming battle as well.
Men know that they are at the mercy of women in the intimate sphere -- and they know where their powers are. Men know that their powers are in the programming sphere, in the trades sphere, in the political sphere, and on and on. Men do not want to disarm because women do not want to disarm.
I have already been called a misogynist, -- just for pointing out the game. The battle is alive and well.
Let's see;... What else might be unclear, that *perhaps* I can give explain:
I said that "Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart." Here I am treating the home metaphorically -- but the message is very visceral and real. Men who love women but can never "make it work," or feel that they have to go through layers of game or interpretation or just giving up (humiliation) in order to "make it work" should be able to intuit what is going on, though. Men and women (heterosexual) have each other in a death-grip around the heart. We love one another, clearly, but we are in a war, we are in a battle. We need each other, and that need has become war.
Women can say "No," and hold themselves in reserve. Men can push her out or dominate her -- if not physically, then politically, economically, or "any means necessary," whether consciously or unconsciously. Of course, women can play the dominance game as well. But we all feel it. We know what is happening. We know when we are being pushed, and we know when we are pushing. At some level, we know.
My appeal is to people who dream for equality, true equality, and love, between
Misogyny? How so? I'm all in favor of women programming. I love women. I love programming. I want to share it with women. I believe in equality of the sexes. I support the grants.
There is no misogyny here; But I think I've touched a nerve...
I think that the way to understand the visceral reactions and willfully beligerant arguments on the behalf of so many men here, is to understand the intimate violence that men, and programmers in particular, have experienced at the hand of woman. I think that a lot of men intuit that their world is "outside" the home, and that women's world is "inside" the home. Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart. Since women say "no" to men's access to their own hearts space, their most intimate and sexual feelings, men feel that they have a right, and perhaps even a duty, to own the outer world.
To put it another way: If our culture was not sexually violent, if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space. But in a culture of sexual humiliation of men, there is no way that they are going to give up "their" territory.
Slashdot Mirror
A bit of a preview for the future: Rainbow's End.
Oh, here, you can read some of the ideas and thoughts from this presentation he made.
It doesn't only seem plausible at this point, it seems practically guaranteed to arise.
I can see an argument that a person's device is effectively part of their brain or their body.
I own it, I control it.
Also. Both my device and my body can catch a virus.
Perhaps the problem with BYOD is sick days.
A bunch of anti-vax types on my FB page were posting articles about how schoolchildren showed that plants that were grown with microwave water didn't grow, with side-by-side illustrations.
Snopes debunked it by repeating the experiment.
Until I see confirmations of the experiment, I am highly skeptical.
One of the biggest advantage of a watch, is that it is practically ALWAYS on your body.
So it should have a virtual button somewhere, to ** ring your cell phone ** for you, so that you can find it.
I've been a professional programmer for ~15 years now; What you've said here strikes me as fairly odd.
Object Oriented Programming is nothing mystical. "Associate methods with your data structures by type." There's half of it. "Now inherit the methods in subtypes." There's the other half of it. We could talk about interfaces and polymorphism as well; It doesn't take long: "You can plug a lot of different things into the wall to get electricity, if we share the interface to the wall plug." People have been talking about that in different ways, for at least a thousand years.
Technical thought is broad and deep. Back in the early 80s, people were talking about "Structured Programming," (within the "procedural" world,) and they really hammered in the concepts of encapsulation and cohesion -- much before the popularity of OOP (itself derived from Alan Kay's ideas) in the 1990's. If there are deep ideas in Object Oriented programming, the deep ideas are ideas that share across technical domains of all kinds.
So I don't think "Object Orientated Programming" is any kind of real barrier.
What robots cannot be programmed to do, is answer the question of: "How do we want to live?"
You have assumed that humans have a specific purpose: propagating genes and having kids.
I don't see it that way. Yes, we have a sex drive, but there is no such encoding in the mind that says: "Your purpose is to breed."
I wake up in the morning; I have a million more desires than "just breed." Some of these desires include: I want to live in an enlightened society. I want clean air and water and plants and life. I want a society where people genuinely like one another and grow and learn and develop. More ambitiously, I'd like people to be able to live longer lives. I'd like people with self-discipline and care. I'd like people who want to do what is right, and feel confident that they can do it. Also sex: I want a world that is much more sexual.
But all together, this is a bit more than just, "just breed." We have hearts. In particular, YOU have a heart. You might be depressed in your outlook, but the fact remains. You have a heart.
You've said: "Human beings are not special." I don't see the point of your statement; What does it matter if human beings are special or not? I care more about the kind of life and world that you are wanting to make.
If you're disappointed with how things are going, that disappointment requires a sense that things could be some other way -- the "appointment" that has not been made.
They use lenses and software to expand the field of view to more than 110 degrees diagonal.
The proper sequence should be:
Humans reason (with their morals) --> Humans write laws/code --> The laws/code go into the machines --> The machines execute the instructions.
Laws are not a substitute for morals; they are the output from our moral reasoning.
It's not about states. It's about cities.
And if you look at a county map, you will almost certainly see the CITIES.
Time to update the urban archipelago maps. I bet they still hold.
Surprised it hasn't been more prominently mentioned...
I know, right? The U.S. Libertarians were all too busy citing George Orwell, 1984..!
Me neither, until I discovered (ta-dah!) "Correction Tape" ..!
It's fantastic, and I swear by it.
Mod up, please.
Pfft... Slashdot is for Nerds.
For News that Matters, you've gotta trot off elsewhere.
I am very curious about the rational for why OpenMW switched from D to C++.
The FAQ points to this page for an explanation, which, at 2012-07-03 8:16 PM Pacific Time, I, an outsider to the effort, do not have access to.
Water Molecule: 275 pico-meters
Ecoli Bacteria: 0.6 micro-meters (109,000x larger)
Rhinovirus: 30 nm (110x larger)
Oh, Dr. Phil is saying this? You're just pushing. That's all. Zero content.
Antagonism towards Indian programmers (racism) is a different issue, with different dynamics.
I don't deny that it exists, and I don't deny that it is important.
You are correct. Every relationship is different, and every individual is different. But there are some generalities that can be made. For example, we are talking about men and women in programming. A great many of the men here are "pushing back," arguing for the purpose of keeping their territory.
Are ALL the men doing that? No, of course not. But there are forces at work here, there are real lives being lived here.
Intimacy is a mixed word, too. It can mean a lot of things. Here I am focusing on sexual intimacy -- I think this is where most ("a great many") men feel locked out.
And I will push it back further: Even men who are happily married -- even in relationships between men and women, where there is no plan to escalate to sex, -- there is still the push and pull of desire in (say) the workplace. There is an intimacy even in this field. Just because a man's sex life with his wife has dwindled to near nothing, and he has given up on sex with anyone else, -- it doesn't mean that there aren't feelings, and that these dynamics are alive and at work within him and her and the society.
I believe that sexual desire is like a nervous system within the social organism. It is always at play. When a group of men and women meet together for purpose A -- something like "making money together" (at a company,) or "going on a picnic" (at a gathering of friends) or "going to the movies" -- wherever there are men and women (or more generally: a "sexual landscape," to include the LGBTx,) -- there are always TWO channels. Channel "A" is the explicit, stated purpose, and then there is always, ALWAYS, Channel "B": the sexual nervous system. The networks of desire, shyness, bravado, temptation, hope, sadness, at play in the sexual realm.
I've gone a long way from your comment, but what I want to say is that "intimacy" is a large field. 2 people who don't even speak to each other, -- just see each other on the bus every now and then -- can (and often DO) have an intimate relationship. So that "intimacy" is vast.
And it's so obvious, right? Yes, you have translated well --
-- except for two things: 1. the judgement, one, and 2. -- (possibly) -- the shame.
There is a notion that men should be able to just "figure out" how to "get laid." That it's a man's job and duty to figure out how to fight the good fight to be smooth. That he needs to toughen up, and "just learn" somehow how to get women to want to have sex with him. Or perhaps it's impossible for him. Or perhaps he needs to learn how to dominate better.
There is nothing in such a man's life telling him that women do in fact already desire him. Rather, there is "faulting," that you have given an example of. Now he's a bad person, or a lazy person, because -- "hey, it's easy." But it's not easy to navigate sexual intimacy, and, further, -- he's not a bad person. He just isn't successful in love. The man and the woman haven't found out how to intimately relate, that's all.
It isn't a crime. And it also isn't his fault.
There are courses teaching men how to pick up. There is the pick-up artist scene, and on and on. There are people who will teach you how to play games. If you look at these courses though, ... You're going to find war, in the vast majority of cases. You are going to find war. It's like dropping your knife for an AK-47. You'll find success, of course. You can take out tons of people to look big, and win success. But the war does not change.
What we need to do, what I really believe we need to do, is to make a culture of love.
I cannot imagine that, if we had a culture of love between men and women, (and in all the sexual worlds, LGBTx,) that men would be trying to push women out of programming, trying to keep women out of programming.
That should be our objective. That should be what we are doing. That's how we can share programming, and every other field. Whether we are men or women, here is our hope.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to unpack some of the ideas.
"The Inside of the Home" and "The Outside of the Home." I am talking about the contemporary society, but also more broadly. Inside of the home is the space literally within the walls of a house or an apartment. Women tend to be the decorators, and in charge of the children, and in charge of care activities. I am not saying that this has to be the case; I am saying that that is how it tends to be in the majority of the cases in our society. Cooking, cleaning, household chores, childrearing, arranging doctor visits, and on and on. Also, interior decoration, arrangement, placements of objects, coordination of guests, and on and on. Even in dual income families, this is generally the pattern.
"Outside the home" refers to the political arena, the realm of work (in an office, in a quarry, at a factory, etc., etc.,.) Again, I am not saying that this is the required way things need to be. I am saying that this is how it tends to be.
The current fad of "man caves" -- or, homes within the home for men -- is a demonstration of this "Inside/Outside" division.
The "intimate violence" that men experience is the control that women hold over intimate relationships, by the withholding power of the "No." Men ask, women reject. The horrors of this were detailed by a woman named Norah Vincent who is a woman who lived as a man for a full year. She detailed exactly what it felt like to be approaching women as a man, and noted for the first time what it is like to be rejected as a man. Women frequently say, "I have been rejected, I know what it's like to be rejected; Man has nothing on me," -- but Norah Vincent actually knows that there is a difference between night and day between the two.
Women individually and collectively have the power to exclude and shame a man for his sexual advances, which he and he alone is required to make. How many tears have been shed by men because of the way that the sexual relationship plays out? This does not receive enough attention.
I am not saying that women are bad, any more than noble-minded feminists are saying that men are bed. I am saying that there is something needing analysis here, if we are going to truly understand what is going on in the relationships between men and women in -- and this is one offshoot -- in the programming battle as well.
Men know that they are at the mercy of women in the intimate sphere -- and they know where their powers are. Men know that their powers are in the programming sphere, in the trades sphere, in the political sphere, and on and on. Men do not want to disarm because women do not want to disarm.
I have already been called a misogynist, -- just for pointing out the game. The battle is alive and well.
Let's see; ... What else might be unclear, that *perhaps* I can give explain:
I said that "Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart." Here I am treating the home metaphorically -- but the message is very visceral and real. Men who love women but can never "make it work," or feel that they have to go through layers of game or interpretation or just giving up (humiliation) in order to "make it work" should be able to intuit what is going on, though. Men and women (heterosexual) have each other in a death-grip around the heart. We love one another, clearly, but we are in a war, we are in a battle. We need each other, and that need has become war.
Women can say "No," and hold themselves in reserve. Men can push her out or dominate her -- if not physically, then politically, economically, or "any means necessary," whether consciously or unconsciously. Of course, women can play the dominance game as well. But we all feel it. We know what is happening. We know when we are being pushed, and we know when we are pushing. At some level, we know.
My appeal is to people who dream for equality, true equality, and love, between
Misogyny? How so? I'm all in favor of women programming. I love women. I love programming. I want to share it with women. I believe in equality of the sexes. I support the grants.
There is no misogyny here; But I think I've touched a nerve...
Ask questions and help me draw it out. It's hard to explain ideas that are not common, and I could use some help.
I think that the way to understand the visceral reactions and willfully beligerant arguments on the behalf of so many men here, is to understand the intimate violence that men, and programmers in particular, have experienced at the hand of woman. I think that a lot of men intuit that their world is "outside" the home, and that women's world is "inside" the home. Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart. Since women say "no" to men's access to their own hearts space, their most intimate and sexual feelings, men feel that they have a right, and perhaps even a duty, to own the outer world.
To put it another way: If our culture was not sexually violent, if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space. But in a culture of sexual humiliation of men, there is no way that they are going to give up "their" territory.