Feminists can take a joke, but are only when the butt of the joke is a man. Just look at greeting cards and television commercials. It is very hard to take seriously a group that claims to want equality, yet demands special treatment. It is very hard to take seriously a group of women who get upset over the portrayal of women in ads but have no problem with men being portrayed the same way in ads.
Feminists apparently believe "Some girls, specifically us, don't like [X], so it must be completely wrong all the time with no exceptions ever, even when we are in the minority or are no even present." What is worse is that feminists are hypocrites. Feminists are against men-only anything. Let feminists hear of a men-only club, and soon you will have a protest; take, for example, the Augusta National Golf Club. Yet, they are perfectly okay with Shapes, a national chain of women-only gyms. Tell me, what would your reaction if you were told you could not join a gym because you are a woman?
Criticizing of feminism by men is a waste of time because it is seen by feminists as an invitation to verbal, and sometimes physical, abuse. From what I have seen, the general response to men criticizing feminism is to call the men names and belittling their opinion.
Feminists have no lives because they are so busy looking for some slight that they don't have time for a real life. You talk about cat-calls and being interrupted in meetings. Yet, I have seen and experienced feminists who don't understand that holding the door open for someone else as one enters or leaves a building is common courtesy and does not have misogynist undertones. Rather than say "Thank you", they will berate and insult a man is merely being polite. I have no doubt that the same people who interrupt you in meetings interrupt men as well. You need to stop worrying about other people's privilege and taking it away and work on increasing your own privilege through effort. And, I find it amusing when women decry the dearth of chivalric actions by men, when it was woman, specifically feminists, who killed such behavior.
For the most part, men do not care if you work in this industry. But, we do care when take it as an insult to your gender when someone who is an ass to everyone is an ass to you. We do care when you feel that because you don't like something, no one else should be allowed to have or do that something. Stop acting like your feelings and desires override those of the men around you.
You say you want equality, well, equality is not "My opinion overrides the opinion of the men around me because I am a woman and they are men." If you want equality act like it.
The funny thing about your comment is that 7-11 stopped carrying Playboy and other men's adult magazines because of a boycott started by "Christians".
Ever notice how the religious have to ban everything forbidden by their religion? I think it is because they are not faithful or strong enough to resist that which their religion forbids.
However, you are not like the majority of computer users. Most computer users do not use Ubuntu, or Linux for that matter. In fact, as so much FLOSS whining attests to, over 85% of home computer users use some version of Windows.
I don't know why you are surprised that people do not want to have to learn a new operating system or a new application or both. Most people don't want to spend the time to do so. The "opportunity cost" is too high for them. And, remember, most FLOSS does not compare favorably to commercial software. FLOSS often has serious deficiencies in one of four areas: performance, ease of use, feature completeness, and user interface.
I don't care if it is OOo, GNUCash, Thunderbird, GIMP, or any of a hundred other FLOSS applications; FLOSS generally fails the user in at least one important way because FLOSS is not written with the user in mind, but rather it is written with the developer in mind. This is the critical flaw in the FLOSS model.
People would rather risk a possible malware infection, which they may never notice, than the certainty of having to spend time to learn something that will more often than not be inferior to what they want to use.
See, there you go failing again. Your ad hominem and your attempts to re-frame the argument in terms you can win are pathetic. I will not fall for your false dilemma and I will not stand for you trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say that, but apparently you are too stupid to understand that. Perhaps you should learn the phrase "diminishing returns", as in "The basic use of multiple similar tools has diminishing returns on expanding one's knowledge; only through advance usage does one actually expand one's knowledge".
You argue like a child, so I must assume you are one.
If you use a computer the way most people do, then yes, you would not be appreciably more computer literate than if you just used a Windows box.
You are trying to frame the argument so that the statements are applied to system administrators and computer enthusiasts rather than average users. I will not let you be disingenuous. Most users do not delve into the internals of an operating system, nor do they recognize what an operating system actually is. Most users are not even power users, let alone technically proficient.
To the average user, the difference between OS X and Windows is the difference between driving a four speed GM pickup and a five speed Nissan coupe. While there are stylistic differences, the technical aspect of the two experiences is effectively the same. Reverse may be in a different place, and the performance may be different, but the actual act of driving is remarkably similar.
For most users, it is the same with operating systems. There might not be a context menu or a second mouse button, but pointing and clicking are the same.
Your ad hominem shows you know you are losing the argument. What is it like to show the world how poorly you can support your positions?
You are making unproven and false assumptions. One is that by owning two computers with different operating systems, one will be more computer literate. In reality, that is not the case. Most people are not proficient with the operating systems they use. Most people are proficient in pointing and clicking to start their web browser, word processor, spreadsheet program, etc. and they may be proficient in the applications themselves. But, by and large, people merely know who to use the operating system to start other programs.
As the little one can do with a Linux machine that one can not do with a Windows machine is often not needed by the vast majority of users, that is a false conclusion based on a false assumption.
Your failure is in assuming people "learn" an operating system.
People use operating systems like they use cars. Most people can start them, and stop them, and point them, but very few understand how they work or can use them in any other than the basic operation. Most people can drive, but very few are proficient drivers.
So mac owners own more computers and computers of various platforms? Logically this leads one to believe that Mac owners are more computer literate and proficient than the average Windows user.
Actually, no, it doesn't. There is not enough information to come to that conclusion. One could also conclude that Mac owners need Windows based PCs because the Macs don't do everything the owner needs. Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own more computers because are more affluent and they can. Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own Macs because they are more affluent and can.
Also, there is no indication of the number of PCs versus the number of Macs in multi-computer house-holds nor the age of the respective computers. If someone owns two new PCs and one only Mac, what does that say about the owner? What if one has one Mac for one of one's children, but everyone else uses Windows PCs?
There is not enough information provided to come to any conclusion other than what is stated in the write-up.
In other words, even though the OP has told you what his budget is and can't afford more than his budget, you have recommended something beyond his budget, thus making a completely useless post just to be an Apple fanboy.
This is not a work around. He will comply with Google's wishes and most everyone will be more or less happy. Google keeps their proprietary apps available for license and he gets to have his distro without having to pay for a distribution license.
Let's see. Protestors turn violent. The police use the sound cannon to disperse them. The protestors use a HERF to disable the sound cannon. How do you think the police will respond?
We have green right turn arrows here. They mean it is safe to turn right on red without stopping. They only light if there should not be any on-coming traffic and the pedestrian light is "Don't walk". Otherwise, unless posted, one can turn right on red, provided one follows the same rules you have listed.
Actually, yes. They are referring to granulated "table" sugar (aka sucrose) when they use the word "sugar". It is a case of colloquial vs scientific speech and definitions.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be right, but alas the fanboys have decided that any criticism, constructive or not, valid or not, is just trolling.
While I am at it, it is very hard to take seriously a group that makes up statistics about domestic violence and the Super Bowl Sunday. And, once the lie was exposed, the group has defended and justified the lie.
And, it is hard to take seriously a group that has been complaining about the wage-gender gap when a female economist showed the gap to be, 2% when experience, education, and number of years on the job are taken into account. And, when a former head of the National Organization for Women New York City shows it is actually false. The reason men tend to make more in many professions is because men do harder and more dangerous jobs. Men are more likely to do the nastier jobs, to work later, to work overtime, work odd hours, to travel for their job, and do all the most difficult things in a job than women. Women are also more likely to choose jobs that are personally rewarding but pay less, such as working for non-profits. The reason men make more than women is because men sacrifice more of their happiness, health, and self to their jobs than women do.
Feminists are their own worst enemy.
For the most part, men do not care if you work in this industry. But, we do care when take it as an insult to your gender when someone who is an ass to everyone is an ass to you. We do care when you feel that because you don't like something, no one else should be allowed to have or do that something. Stop acting like your feelings and desires override those of the men around you.
You say you want equality, well, equality is not "My opinion overrides the opinion of the men around me because I am a woman and they are men." If you want equality act like it.
The funny thing about your comment is that 7-11 stopped carrying Playboy and other men's adult magazines because of a boycott started by "Christians".
Ever notice how the religious have to ban everything forbidden by their religion? I think it is because they are not faithful or strong enough to resist that which their religion forbids.
However, you are not like the majority of computer users. Most computer users do not use Ubuntu, or Linux for that matter. In fact, as so much FLOSS whining attests to, over 85% of home computer users use some version of Windows.
I don't know why you are surprised that people do not want to have to learn a new operating system or a new application or both. Most people don't want to spend the time to do so. The "opportunity cost" is too high for them. And, remember, most FLOSS does not compare favorably to commercial software. FLOSS often has serious deficiencies in one of four areas: performance, ease of use, feature completeness, and user interface.
I don't care if it is OOo, GNUCash, Thunderbird, GIMP, or any of a hundred other FLOSS applications; FLOSS generally fails the user in at least one important way because FLOSS is not written with the user in mind, but rather it is written with the developer in mind. This is the critical flaw in the FLOSS model.
People would rather risk a possible malware infection, which they may never notice, than the certainty of having to spend time to learn something that will more often than not be inferior to what they want to use.
No, that is not what you have said, dumbass. Now, I am tired of your trolling. Go die in a fire.
See, there you go failing again. Your ad hominem and your attempts to re-frame the argument in terms you can win are pathetic. I will not fall for your false dilemma and I will not stand for you trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say that, but apparently you are too stupid to understand that. Perhaps you should learn the phrase "diminishing returns", as in "The basic use of multiple similar tools has diminishing returns on expanding one's knowledge; only through advance usage does one actually expand one's knowledge".
You argue like a child, so I must assume you are one.
Now, run home to momma, little boy.
If you use a computer the way most people do, then yes, you would not be appreciably more computer literate than if you just used a Windows box.
You are trying to frame the argument so that the statements are applied to system administrators and computer enthusiasts rather than average users. I will not let you be disingenuous. Most users do not delve into the internals of an operating system, nor do they recognize what an operating system actually is. Most users are not even power users, let alone technically proficient.
To the average user, the difference between OS X and Windows is the difference between driving a four speed GM pickup and a five speed Nissan coupe. While there are stylistic differences, the technical aspect of the two experiences is effectively the same. Reverse may be in a different place, and the performance may be different, but the actual act of driving is remarkably similar.
For most users, it is the same with operating systems. There might not be a context menu or a second mouse button, but pointing and clicking are the same.
Your ad hominem shows you know you are losing the argument. What is it like to show the world how poorly you can support your positions?
You are making unproven and false assumptions. One is that by owning two computers with different operating systems, one will be more computer literate. In reality, that is not the case. Most people are not proficient with the operating systems they use. Most people are proficient in pointing and clicking to start their web browser, word processor, spreadsheet program, etc. and they may be proficient in the applications themselves. But, by and large, people merely know who to use the operating system to start other programs.
As the little one can do with a Linux machine that one can not do with a Windows machine is often not needed by the vast majority of users, that is a false conclusion based on a false assumption.
Your failure is in assuming people "learn" an operating system.
People use operating systems like they use cars. Most people can start them, and stop them, and point them, but very few understand how they work or can use them in any other than the basic operation. Most people can drive, but very few are proficient drivers.
Actually, no, it doesn't. There is not enough information to come to that conclusion.
One could also conclude that Mac owners need Windows based PCs because the Macs don't do everything the owner needs.
Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own more computers because are more affluent and they can.
Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own Macs because they are more affluent and can.
Also, there is no indication of the number of PCs versus the number of Macs in multi-computer house-holds nor the age of the respective computers. If someone owns two new PCs and one only Mac, what does that say about the owner? What if one has one Mac for one of one's children, but everyone else uses Windows PCs?
There is not enough information provided to come to any conclusion other than what is stated in the write-up.
You mean like investigating the installation of unauthorized software on a federal government computer?
Oh wait....
Oh, look, I am being mod-stalked by the Apple fanboys!
In other words, even though the OP has told you what his budget is and can't afford more than his budget, you have recommended something beyond his budget, thus making a completely useless post just to be an Apple fanboy.
Good job.
It had to do with money and the fact that there has never been an Olympics held in South America.
Um, no. Look up the first sale doctrine. A ruling against Vernor would, at best, only apply to items that require a license.
Who said soup is a bad thing? I like soup, damn it!
Invention fail!
They would drown.
Now, baby sharks....
This is not a work around. He will comply with Google's wishes and most everyone will be more or less happy. Google keeps their proprietary apps available for license and he gets to have his distro without having to pay for a distribution license.
A compromise that is win-win all around.
That was $1,675.00 or so to play WoW for 4 year and 8 months.
It costs $1,568.00 to smoke two packs a cigarettes a week at $3.50 a pack over that same amount of time.
All told, I think WoW has a comparatively small cost.
Let's see. Protestors turn violent. The police use the sound cannon to disperse them. The protestors use a HERF to disable the sound cannon. How do you think the police will respond?
We have green right turn arrows here. They mean it is safe to turn right on red without stopping. They only light if there should not be any on-coming traffic and the pedestrian light is "Don't walk". Otherwise, unless posted, one can turn right on red, provided one follows the same rules you have listed.
Not news.
Though it looks like kdawson has figured out a way to overwrite posts he doesn't like with posts he does like.
21 U.S.C. 301 and 42 U.S.C. 201
Actually, yes. They are referring to granulated "table" sugar (aka sucrose) when they use the word "sugar". It is a case of colloquial vs scientific speech and definitions.
It was just modified by farmers over a longer period of time using human (i.e. unnatural selection) to bring out certain traits.
The only difference is in the people doing the modification and the techniques used.
Just like dogs have been genetically modified to produce everything from chihuahuas to great danes.