Who are the prominent feminists that you're talking about? I can't think of a single one that has said that confidence is a negative trait, in men or women. Quite the reverse, actually: people who are secure in themselves do not need to demonize others to support their self-worth. That goes for other genders, other religions, and other political views. If a woman turns you down for a date and you're self-confident, you shrug your shoulders and pick someone else: it's the men who are not self-confident who are likely to call her a "dyke" or a "frigid bitch".
Every political movement has its radical nutjobs who get a lot of press because they're radical nutjobs. Judging feminism by the nutjobs is like judging all Republicans by Glenn Beck, or all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church.
I have been dating a politically active feminist for over twenty-five years now, and I count a number of self-identified feminists (some academics) among my friends and family for longer than that. Some are lesbian, some are bi, but most self-identify as straight and have successful, self-confident husbands. I imagine that all of them would roll their eyes at the phrase "feminist agenda" or a "gay agenda". Those aren't real things. They're just scare words.
I honestly can't tell if you are serious, or doing an excellent parody of an insecure adolescent who is scared of strong women because a woman turned him down once. Please advise.
Thanks for trying anyway.:-) My bad, not getting back to/. until two days later.
(Funny thing: five minutes ago I saw someone else do the exact same thing that I did: posting a comment in one story that was intended for another. So I still feel dumb, but less *uniquely* dumb.)
For the few equity traders that buy Bitcoin that it is rare and that the Bitcoin economy is going to grow is enough. They just buy some Bitcoin and hold on to it.
I wearing one while driving in NYC the other day, and every time I made one particular gesture at other drivers, they made the exact same gesture back at me. Uncanny.
The next time you want to post a broad, bigoted claim that covers well over a billion people, at least have the courage to do so with your own account instead of AC. If you're afraid of the repercussions of doing so, maybe you should stop and ask yourself why there would be repercussions in the first place.
All of those testimonies against Rappe were also unproven allegations and rumors. Your own source makes that clear.
You seem to find it easy to vigorously defend a man's reputation against unfounded allegations, but you call a woman a hooker or "too close to call" based on... no such allegations. Interesting.
Virginia Rappe was not a hooker, she was an actress. There was at least one person who accused Arbuckle of violently raping or assaulting her at the party, resulting in the ruptured bladder that caused her death. There were numerous conflicting accounts at the time. The case dragged on through three trials; he was only acquitted in the third trial. It's still not clear what actually happened.
I'm proposing a little more than that. Magic cookies are ad-hoc; as far as I know there is no consistent standard for them. I'm proposing a standard header syntax which would be...
-- Self-evident to anyone who looks at the header of a file with an ordinary text editor or string-dumper
-- Aligned with the existing RFCs for MIME content types
-- Extensible to allow other file metadata such as the program that created the file, the date of creation or last modification, etc. Each content type or subtype could define format-specific extension tags which would be easily available to any program. E.g.:
Content-type: audio/mp3
Creator: grip 5.1 (Linux)
Audio-title: Despicable Me
Audio-album: Despicable Me Soundtrack
Audio-genre: Soundtracks
Audio-artist: Pharrel
Audio-mp3-sampling-rate: 44100K
{conventional binary mp3 data....}
Eh, maybe that goes too far, but you get the idea. Me, I'd just be happy if we all agreed that the standard cookie format at the head of a file would be this:
Content-type: {{mime-type}}[CR][LF]
Everything else could be taken care of by the format itself.
Then apologies, I misunderstood you.:-) I was keying in on this sentence:
If it's not really the same file, then the bug is that the OS has allowed the person to call multiple documents by the same name.
Certainly they are not the same file, but the OS is not at fault here. The OS (well, technically, the Windows filesystem) properly keeps track of the full filename -- it is the Windows desktop user interface that is at fault by hiding information.
But there is a hack in Windows, which is that changing the filename extension changes what Windows thinks that the file holds, and what application it launches. That's why I think we need a consistent content envelope across operating systems which makes use of established MIME content-types.
I have to disagree. The extensions are part of the unique filename; that much is well established across different operating systems. The only hack is using extensions to indicate the content type to the OS.
Apple got this right ages ago, by using the resource fork as a place to keep file metadata. They had their own version of MIME types ages ago, whereby they encoded both the file type and the program that created the file in the resource fork. A user could rename a.jpg to a.doc and the OS would still know that it was really a JPEG. Well behaved Linux/UNIX systems do this with magic cookies, but those are really an awful hack.
My opinion FWIW: every file format should start with a MIME header in UTF8, in which the content-type of the "rest" of the file after the header should be kept. The header could always begin with the sequence "Content-type:" to act as a magic cookie indicating the presence of a MIME-header.
So here's a possible JPG file, where [CR][LF] is a carriage-return linefeed sequence:
Existing programs should be able to be retrofitted pretty easily: if the input file starts with "Content-type:", skip to the end of the MIME header and do traditional processing from there. Otherwise, assume that it's an old-school file. This allows us to put all sorts of metadata in the file header:
This. I've seeing users create directories where they save the same file in different formats for different purposes, and the only thing different is the extension. If you can't see the extension, it looks like you've got multiple files named "foo" where only the icons differ.
Slashdot Mirror
in the desert. And it should be a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Ah; I'll have to take a look at her writing. As I understand it, she's focused on the "gaming" subculture, which I have very little contact with.
Who are the prominent feminists that you're talking about? I can't think of a single one that has said that confidence is a negative trait, in men or women. Quite the reverse, actually: people who are secure in themselves do not need to demonize others to support their self-worth. That goes for other genders, other religions, and other political views. If a woman turns you down for a date and you're self-confident, you shrug your shoulders and pick someone else: it's the men who are not self-confident who are likely to call her a "dyke" or a "frigid bitch".
Every political movement has its radical nutjobs who get a lot of press because they're radical nutjobs. Judging feminism by the nutjobs is like judging all Republicans by Glenn Beck, or all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church.
I have been dating a politically active feminist for over twenty-five years now, and I count a number of self-identified feminists (some academics) among my friends and family for longer than that. Some are lesbian, some are bi, but most self-identify as straight and have successful, self-confident husbands. I imagine that all of them would roll their eyes at the phrase "feminist agenda" or a "gay agenda". Those aren't real things. They're just scare words.
I honestly can't tell if you are serious, or doing an excellent parody of an insecure adolescent who is scared of strong women because a woman turned him down once. Please advise.
+1 for you if I had the mod points....
Thanks for trying anyway. :-) My bad, not getting back to /. until two days later.
(Funny thing: five minutes ago I saw someone else do the exact same thing that I did: posting a comment in one story that was intended for another. So I still feel dumb, but less *uniquely* dumb.)
Argh! That's where I'd MEANT to post it. :-(
https://xkcd.com/1504/
Quick, change it to 12345!
For the few equity traders that buy Bitcoin that it is rare and that the Bitcoin economy is going to grow is enough. They just buy some Bitcoin and hold on to it.
I'll just leave this here:
Value of Bitcoin over the last two years
About the "make beautiful jewelry from it" though... not so much.
People also like to possess it because it is rare and you can make beautiful jewelry from it, some of which is traditionally made from gold.
I wearing one while driving in NYC the other day, and every time I made one particular gesture at other drivers, they made the exact same gesture back at me. Uncanny.
The next time you want to post a broad, bigoted claim that covers well over a billion people, at least have the courage to do so with your own account instead of AC. If you're afraid of the repercussions of doing so, maybe you should stop and ask yourself why there would be repercussions in the first place.
All of those testimonies against Rappe were also unproven allegations and rumors. Your own source makes that clear.
You seem to find it easy to vigorously defend a man's reputation against unfounded allegations, but you call a woman a hooker or "too close to call" based on... no such allegations. Interesting.
Virginia Rappe was not a hooker, she was an actress. There was at least one person who accused Arbuckle of violently raping or assaulting her at the party, resulting in the ruptured bladder that caused her death. There were numerous conflicting accounts at the time. The case dragged on through three trials; he was only acquitted in the third trial. It's still not clear what actually happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
I'm proposing a little more than that. Magic cookies are ad-hoc; as far as I know there is no consistent standard for them. I'm proposing a standard header syntax which would be...
-- Self-evident to anyone who looks at the header of a file with an ordinary text editor or string-dumper
-- Aligned with the existing RFCs for MIME content types
-- Extensible to allow other file metadata such as the program that created the file, the date of creation or last modification, etc. Each content type or subtype could define format-specific extension tags which would be easily available to any program. E.g.:
Content-type: audio/mp3
Creator: grip 5.1 (Linux)
Audio-title: Despicable Me
Audio-album: Despicable Me Soundtrack
Audio-genre: Soundtracks
Audio-artist: Pharrel
Audio-mp3-sampling-rate: 44100K
{conventional binary mp3 data....}
Eh, maybe that goes too far, but you get the idea. Me, I'd just be happy if we all agreed that the standard cookie format at the head of a file would be this:
Content-type: {{mime-type}}[CR][LF]
Everything else could be taken care of by the format itself.
Then apologies, I misunderstood you. :-) I was keying in on this sentence:
Certainly they are not the same file, but the OS is not at fault here. The OS (well, technically, the Windows filesystem) properly keeps track of the full filename -- it is the Windows desktop user interface that is at fault by hiding information.
But there is a hack in Windows, which is that changing the filename extension changes what Windows thinks that the file holds, and what application it launches. That's why I think we need a consistent content envelope across operating systems which makes use of established MIME content-types.
I have to disagree. The extensions are part of the unique filename; that much is well established across different operating systems. The only hack is using extensions to indicate the content type to the OS.
Apple got this right ages ago, by using the resource fork as a place to keep file metadata. They had their own version of MIME types ages ago, whereby they encoded both the file type and the program that created the file in the resource fork. A user could rename a .jpg to a .doc and the OS would still know that it was really a JPEG. Well behaved Linux/UNIX systems do this with magic cookies, but those are really an awful hack.
My opinion FWIW: every file format should start with a MIME header in UTF8, in which the content-type of the "rest" of the file after the header should be kept. The header could always begin with the sequence "Content-type:" to act as a magic cookie indicating the presence of a MIME-header.
So here's a possible JPG file, where [CR][LF] is a carriage-return linefeed sequence:
Content-type: image/jpeg [CR][LF]
[CR][LF]
{old-school binary JPEG data...}
Existing programs should be able to be retrofitted pretty easily: if the input file starts with "Content-type:", skip to the end of the MIME header and do traditional processing from there. Otherwise, assume that it's an old-school file. This allows us to put all sorts of metadata in the file header:
Content-type: image/jpeg
Creator: Adobe Photoshop
Created-on: 2015-03-02T11:23:34Z
Content-disposition: inline; filename="IMG-1234.jpg"
{old-school binary JPEG data...}
One content envelope to rule them all. :-)
Thanks, Internet!
Now someone needs to make a BSOD out of tiny blocks of water...
I expect that Microsoft will finish the C#/.NET reimplementation of Minecraft at roughly the same time the fad is over.
This. I've seeing users create directories where they save the same file in different formats for different purposes, and the only thing different is the extension. If you can't see the extension, it looks like you've got multiple files named "foo" where only the icons differ.
In this case, shouldn't that be "pedobytes"?
I'll see myself out...
I'm pretty sure Aperture Science used the same architect.