Maybe women in the US are, and that is very dependent upon the woman I might add, but in cultures where bar dancers are commonplace most women don't even notice them... any more than the men do. This is a non-event in so many ways it's appalling that anyone gives a shit.
I've been put in this situation before and there was nothing I could do except play the game and shove money down her pants.
Wrong! You can politely decline her advances and not pay her a cent. You can [God forbid] have a conversation with her that has nothing to do with giving her money (although that's harder but not impossible) and never ever feel bad for yourself or her.
Women who do this do it for many reasons, not all of them are exploitation. Men who accept this are not being exploited (necessarily) any more than the women are. Enjoying the company or sight of attractive people is not a bad thing. As you suggest, there's nothing wrong with being aware of your manhood without trying to prove it to every other swinging dick around you, but there's also nothing wrong with enjoying what is out there to be seen. Treat people with respect, whether they are cops, strippers, hookers, your parents or your neighbor, and you've done all that should be expected of you.
I guarantee, from personal experience, that people around you will respect you plenty if you don't "partake" but enjoy the atmosphere quietly and treat all persons present respectfully.
I've never understood this. You do realize, don't you, that without feminism, you wouldn't be a female programmer today? You'd either be a housewife, or a secretary looking for a husband so you can become a housewife.
Understanding your history doesn't imply you have to agree with the same course for the future. Being appreciative of her position now doesn't obligate her to agree with the rest of the political mumbo-jumbo of zealots that say all women should work and women who don't are somehow less of a woman because of it.**
For those who've spent any amount of time in Asia where there's any significant amount of cash, dancing girls are fairly common at bars, at restaurants, just about anywhere there are young men and women willing to spend some money.
Yahoo! shouldn't apologize for using local culture (even if it is scantily clad) to attract more attendees to its conferences.
Or maybe I'm just less of a prude than the people who are complaining about this?
And how did they get that marketshare? Arguably from having a "superior" UI.
Argue it all you want, but Apple didn't win the portable music marketshare they have by being Apple. They won it by appealing to consumers' desires, be it pretty colors, nice ergonomics, simple interface, or whatever. That is a superior product in all areas where non-techies give a damn.
I'll agree that now that they have the market share other products will suffer as you have indicated, but they got that market share for a reason.
I pay substantially more than my "individual risk" on a regular basis. I've seen a doctor 11 times in the last 10 years, and that's for routine physicals and 1 nasty case of poison Ivy. The total cost of those visits is about $1000 including bloodwork. I've paid well over $1000 in that time for my portion of my health insurance coverage since I generally pay about $1000 per year. I simply don't get sick (lucky me) enough to warrant paying for insurance for myself. I do pay for insurance for my children though, and because I get it through my employer, I'm forced to also pay for insurance for me. It's cheaper for me to do it this way, generally, but I am still paying a premium for a service I simply don't use.
I can't possibly be the only person in this situation.
For a large number of people it comes down to the fact they prefer to live in denial of the need and are just hoping if they hold out long enough someone else will pay for it, even if they tacitly acknowledge it will be through taxes that will increase and they will be paying it anyway.
Or perhaps they recognize that the "need" for insurance for most individuals just isn't high enough to warrant the cost? Insurance is a waste of money for healthy people unless they engage in somewhat dangerous activities for hobbies. It is a way to subsidize people who don't have the means to pay their own expenses. Let's not even get into the undercurrent of the issue, which is the mutual back-scratching of Insurance and big pharmaceuticals and medical technology companies that drive medical prices ever higher.
This assumes they supply you with the details of why you were rejected.
"I'm sorry, sir, you've been rejected because of a genetic predisposition for Parkinson's disease" is a lot different than "I'm sorry, sir, you've been rejected because you may contract a disease."
Not having the details of what you might be in store for in your future means you can't just assume it's a life threatening disease. You have to assume it isn't life threatening but painful, debilitating, and expensive to treat before you can just say "it's not worth it to pay insurance costs".
Full copies of the DNA are distributed... only half copies are used.
Re:Spotify not ITunes will be the big competitor
on
Google To Take On iTunes?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In short, they've made their "free" (ad-supported) service too good.
Which is exactly why it would be a good fit for Google. The ad-support is where Google makes its money, primarily, so it makes sense. I'm sure if Google would purchase them, they'd be able to fix the poorly directed ad thing very quickly, as I've noticed a reasonably good correlation between the ads presented to me on gmail (when I actually log in via the web rather than a pop reader) and what I'm reading/discussing at the time.
The problem doesn't come in until they stop showing other people's options. Just showing theirs first isn't abuse, it's smart business.
Google has long since passed the "do no evil" hat to other companies, in my book, but so far they're at least trying to stay in the "do less evil" realm as far as I can tell. They're too big now to do no evil, but they haven't turned completely evil yet. Some day, I suspect, they will, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt while we still can.
Well, you can buy music all over the place. But for the vast, vast majority of online music buyers when they think 'I want to buy a song', they think 'iTunes'. How is RickRussellTX any different than anyone else? It's not like Amazon is some geek-only known site that is obscure and hard to find. Plus the application mentioned runs on more platforms (does iTunes run on linux yet???) and is arguably less "locked-in" and therefore more widely usable.
They are superior, from a usability standpoint. That's the point of the GP. Technically superior, perhaps not, but who cares if I buy a "superior" product I can't or don't want to figure out how to use?
Giving away the source code wouldn't necessarily eliminate the issue of a malicious app "destroying the ecosystem", as you put it. Apple is never going to allow widespread "sharing" of apps unless they have the finger on them for this very reason.
Apple has always maintained a tight control over their systems, there's absolutely no reason to expect that to change now.
This has help Apple survive, but it ultimatly leads to Apple's cyclical demise.
What demise is this? I've been hearing about Apple's demise for 20 years now, and they're still going strong. In fact, they're getting stronger.
Google and Apple will be able to co-exist just fine. Apple may lose a little market share, but I'm sure they'll survive. iTMS isn't their wellspring anyway. It's a helluva bonus, but it's not their primary breadwinner, and as far as I know, isn't expected to be any time soon.
You've reworded exactly my point. You've taken the "word of God" as you believe it, by comparing it to what you understand logically. You've come up with an illogical belief (that a man was crucified then came back from the dead) based upon your faith, despite all external sources not supporting that belief.
I wasn't trying to imply that any Christian (or other faith-minded person) thinks the entire Bible is word-for-word accurate and an exact "translation" of the word of God. I meant, and obviously wasn't as clear as I thought, that you can't rely on external sources and still believe a man came back from the dead after 3 days to save all of mankind from their sins. That belief relies entirely on personal faith because there are no outside sources which support it.
It's obvious that the big distributors are following Microsoft's strategy. Get popular and crush the competition, then extract money from whoever has big pockets.
I think you'll find that has been the music industry M.O. for as long as there has been a recording industry. MS is the relative newb when it comes to such behavior.
Look at that... I stand corrected. When I was in language school there was much talk about category 5 and I thought I had seen something in writing about it. I must be mistaken.
Yeah, of course no one has difficulty learning their native language, so I really don't think you can have a good point of comparison if English isn't one of the languages that you've learned as an adult.
As I said, based on my experiences and those of non-native English speakers I know.
I tend to agree that your native language has more of an impact in its similarity to the new language, but I don't think it's really that big of an issue. I think the larger issue is the desire and or necessity to learn the new language.
I don't know if it was you but someone mentioned the difference between "native" fluency and the ability to communicate and I'd definitely say English falls into the category of "easy to communicate but difficult to master" quite well.
As I said, most of the romance languages (that includes French) are category 2 (for French) or 3. That would imply the semtitic languages (category 4) are harder than French.
The categories, as far as I know, are not based upon being a native English speaker, otherwise they wouldn't have a category for English. As I said, they are based upon simplicity and consistency of the rules for grammar, spelling and the like as well as pronunciation difficulties.
I didn't mention, but thought it was implied by my previous posts that 1 is considered the "easiest" while 5 is the "hardest". Now, as I also noted, I didn't think any of the languages I've studied were particularly difficult. I don't think there really is an "easy" and a "difficult" to it. You either have the aptitude to learn multiple languages (similar or dissimilar languages) or you don't. I believe most of us do have the aptitude, just not the desire/necessity.
I wish my mom and sister would learn this "simple" technique. I always get the call... My first question is always, "did you google it? No? Why don't you try? Hey, look, first response to is an answer to your question. See, that only took 30 seconds and you've been hemming and hawing for the last 2 hours and finally decided to call me."
I have not found that to be the case in my experiences. They may like outside sources, but truly faithful people (not people who go to church as a social function as many do) don't need outside confirmation of their beliefs. I have found that most of these people are the type that respond to reason and have often questioned their own faith at some point and resolved the issue within their own minds.
I don't consider "religious people" to be people of faith. Perhaps that's the confusion here. I think many "religious people" are sheep that are clinging to anything to make themselves feel a part of something or simply because they were raised to it by their parents and never learned to question it.
Honestly, I get it from being a former military linguist and studying various languages. The US military/State department testing for languages puts English as a category 5, most of the romance and Slavic languages (a couple exceptions) as category 2 or 3 and many of the Asian languages (that use different alphabets) and middle eastern (Arabic, Hebrew, a couple of others) as category 4. I don't remember any category 1 languages.
These categories are based on simplicity and consistency of the rules for grammar, spelling, etc. They also take into account (as I understand it) difficulty of pronunciation. Korean, for example is a category 4 language. It is a phonetic language though, so once you learn the alphabet it's fairly easy to sound out any word. English, on the other hand, has horrible consistency of spelling and phonetics. Two, to, too; hear, heard; tear (cry), tear (rip); etc etc.
I am a native English speaker. I've studied French, German, Korean, Chinese, a little bit of Japanese, a little bit of Spanish and dabbled briefly with Tagalog. For me, the most difficult has been Chinese, with French, Spanish, and Tagalog being the easiest. I can't speak to any difficulty learning English because I was reading novels at age 4 and don't remember any issues with the language. My "English is considered difficult" is based entirely on my study of other languages, the test mentioned above, and my experiences living with and dealing with other languages and their native speakers.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe women in the US are, and that is very dependent upon the woman I might add, but in cultures where bar dancers are commonplace most women don't even notice them... any more than the men do. This is a non-event in so many ways it's appalling that anyone gives a shit.
I think I saw those in a club in Vegas once...
I've been put in this situation before and there was nothing I could do except play the game and shove money down her pants.
Wrong! You can politely decline her advances and not pay her a cent. You can [God forbid] have a conversation with her that has nothing to do with giving her money (although that's harder but not impossible) and never ever feel bad for yourself or her.
Women who do this do it for many reasons, not all of them are exploitation. Men who accept this are not being exploited (necessarily) any more than the women are. Enjoying the company or sight of attractive people is not a bad thing. As you suggest, there's nothing wrong with being aware of your manhood without trying to prove it to every other swinging dick around you, but there's also nothing wrong with enjoying what is out there to be seen. Treat people with respect, whether they are cops, strippers, hookers, your parents or your neighbor, and you've done all that should be expected of you.
I guarantee, from personal experience, that people around you will respect you plenty if you don't "partake" but enjoy the atmosphere quietly and treat all persons present respectfully.
I've never understood this. You do realize, don't you, that without feminism, you wouldn't be a female programmer today? You'd either be a housewife, or a secretary looking for a husband so you can become a housewife.
Understanding your history doesn't imply you have to agree with the same course for the future. Being appreciative of her position now doesn't obligate her to agree with the rest of the political mumbo-jumbo of zealots that say all women should work and women who don't are somehow less of a woman because of it.**
**I'm aware not all feminists are zealots.
For those who've spent any amount of time in Asia where there's any significant amount of cash, dancing girls are fairly common at bars, at restaurants, just about anywhere there are young men and women willing to spend some money.
Yahoo! shouldn't apologize for using local culture (even if it is scantily clad) to attract more attendees to its conferences.
Or maybe I'm just less of a prude than the people who are complaining about this?
This will be another Cisco event where the case eventually gets settled out of court for some undisclosed amount of money... nothing to see here.
And how did they get that marketshare? Arguably from having a "superior" UI.
Argue it all you want, but Apple didn't win the portable music marketshare they have by being Apple. They won it by appealing to consumers' desires, be it pretty colors, nice ergonomics, simple interface, or whatever. That is a superior product in all areas where non-techies give a damn.
I'll agree that now that they have the market share other products will suffer as you have indicated, but they got that market share for a reason.
I pay substantially more than my "individual risk" on a regular basis. I've seen a doctor 11 times in the last 10 years, and that's for routine physicals and 1 nasty case of poison Ivy. The total cost of those visits is about $1000 including bloodwork. I've paid well over $1000 in that time for my portion of my health insurance coverage since I generally pay about $1000 per year. I simply don't get sick (lucky me) enough to warrant paying for insurance for myself. I do pay for insurance for my children though, and because I get it through my employer, I'm forced to also pay for insurance for me. It's cheaper for me to do it this way, generally, but I am still paying a premium for a service I simply don't use.
I can't possibly be the only person in this situation.
For a large number of people it comes down to the fact they prefer to live in denial of the need and are just hoping if they hold out long enough someone else will pay for it, even if they tacitly acknowledge it will be through taxes that will increase and they will be paying it anyway.
Or perhaps they recognize that the "need" for insurance for most individuals just isn't high enough to warrant the cost? Insurance is a waste of money for healthy people unless they engage in somewhat dangerous activities for hobbies. It is a way to subsidize people who don't have the means to pay their own expenses. Let's not even get into the undercurrent of the issue, which is the mutual back-scratching of Insurance and big pharmaceuticals and medical technology companies that drive medical prices ever higher.
This assumes they supply you with the details of why you were rejected.
"I'm sorry, sir, you've been rejected because of a genetic predisposition for Parkinson's disease" is a lot different than "I'm sorry, sir, you've been rejected because you may contract a disease."
Not having the details of what you might be in store for in your future means you can't just assume it's a life threatening disease. You have to assume it isn't life threatening but painful, debilitating, and expensive to treat before you can just say "it's not worth it to pay insurance costs".
Thank you. I was wondering if I'd have to be the first to mention that.
Full copies of the DNA are distributed... only half copies are used.
In short, they've made their "free" (ad-supported) service too good.
Which is exactly why it would be a good fit for Google. The ad-support is where Google makes its money, primarily, so it makes sense. I'm sure if Google would purchase them, they'd be able to fix the poorly directed ad thing very quickly, as I've noticed a reasonably good correlation between the ads presented to me on gmail (when I actually log in via the web rather than a pop reader) and what I'm reading/discussing at the time.
The problem doesn't come in until they stop showing other people's options. Just showing theirs first isn't abuse, it's smart business.
Google has long since passed the "do no evil" hat to other companies, in my book, but so far they're at least trying to stay in the "do less evil" realm as far as I can tell. They're too big now to do no evil, but they haven't turned completely evil yet. Some day, I suspect, they will, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt while we still can.
Well, you can buy music all over the place. But for the vast, vast majority of online music buyers when they think 'I want to buy a song', they think 'iTunes'.
How is RickRussellTX any different than anyone else? It's not like Amazon is some geek-only known site that is obscure and hard to find. Plus the application mentioned runs on more platforms (does iTunes run on linux yet???) and is arguably less "locked-in" and therefore more widely usable.
They are superior, from a usability standpoint. That's the point of the GP. Technically superior, perhaps not, but who cares if I buy a "superior" product I can't or don't want to figure out how to use?
Giving away the source code wouldn't necessarily eliminate the issue of a malicious app "destroying the ecosystem", as you put it. Apple is never going to allow widespread "sharing" of apps unless they have the finger on them for this very reason.
Apple has always maintained a tight control over their systems, there's absolutely no reason to expect that to change now.
This has help Apple survive, but it ultimatly leads to Apple's cyclical demise.
What demise is this? I've been hearing about Apple's demise for 20 years now, and they're still going strong. In fact, they're getting stronger.
Google and Apple will be able to co-exist just fine. Apple may lose a little market share, but I'm sure they'll survive. iTMS isn't their wellspring anyway. It's a helluva bonus, but it's not their primary breadwinner, and as far as I know, isn't expected to be any time soon.
You've reworded exactly my point. You've taken the "word of God" as you believe it, by comparing it to what you understand logically. You've come up with an illogical belief (that a man was crucified then came back from the dead) based upon your faith, despite all external sources not supporting that belief.
I wasn't trying to imply that any Christian (or other faith-minded person) thinks the entire Bible is word-for-word accurate and an exact "translation" of the word of God. I meant, and obviously wasn't as clear as I thought, that you can't rely on external sources and still believe a man came back from the dead after 3 days to save all of mankind from their sins. That belief relies entirely on personal faith because there are no outside sources which support it.
It's obvious that the big distributors are following Microsoft's strategy. Get popular and crush the competition, then extract money from whoever has big pockets.
I think you'll find that has been the music industry M.O. for as long as there has been a recording industry. MS is the relative newb when it comes to such behavior.
Look at that... I stand corrected. When I was in language school there was much talk about category 5 and I thought I had seen something in writing about it. I must be mistaken.
Yeah, of course no one has difficulty learning their native language, so I really don't think you can have a good point of comparison if English isn't one of the languages that you've learned as an adult.
As I said, based on my experiences and those of non-native English speakers I know.
I tend to agree that your native language has more of an impact in its similarity to the new language, but I don't think it's really that big of an issue. I think the larger issue is the desire and or necessity to learn the new language.
I don't know if it was you but someone mentioned the difference between "native" fluency and the ability to communicate and I'd definitely say English falls into the category of "easy to communicate but difficult to master" quite well.
As I said, most of the romance languages (that includes French) are category 2 (for French) or 3. That would imply the semtitic languages (category 4) are harder than French.
The categories, as far as I know, are not based upon being a native English speaker, otherwise they wouldn't have a category for English. As I said, they are based upon simplicity and consistency of the rules for grammar, spelling and the like as well as pronunciation difficulties.
I didn't mention, but thought it was implied by my previous posts that 1 is considered the "easiest" while 5 is the "hardest". Now, as I also noted, I didn't think any of the languages I've studied were particularly difficult. I don't think there really is an "easy" and a "difficult" to it. You either have the aptitude to learn multiple languages (similar or dissimilar languages) or you don't. I believe most of us do have the aptitude, just not the desire/necessity.
I wish my mom and sister would learn this "simple" technique. I always get the call... My first question is always, "did you google it? No? Why don't you try? Hey, look, first response to is an answer to your question. See, that only took 30 seconds and you've been hemming and hawing for the last 2 hours and finally decided to call me."
I have not found that to be the case in my experiences. They may like outside sources, but truly faithful people (not people who go to church as a social function as many do) don't need outside confirmation of their beliefs. I have found that most of these people are the type that respond to reason and have often questioned their own faith at some point and resolved the issue within their own minds.
I don't consider "religious people" to be people of faith. Perhaps that's the confusion here. I think many "religious people" are sheep that are clinging to anything to make themselves feel a part of something or simply because they were raised to it by their parents and never learned to question it.
Honestly, I get it from being a former military linguist and studying various languages. The US military/State department testing for languages puts English as a category 5, most of the romance and Slavic languages (a couple exceptions) as category 2 or 3 and many of the Asian languages (that use different alphabets) and middle eastern (Arabic, Hebrew, a couple of others) as category 4. I don't remember any category 1 languages.
These categories are based on simplicity and consistency of the rules for grammar, spelling, etc. They also take into account (as I understand it) difficulty of pronunciation. Korean, for example is a category 4 language. It is a phonetic language though, so once you learn the alphabet it's fairly easy to sound out any word. English, on the other hand, has horrible consistency of spelling and phonetics. Two, to, too; hear, heard; tear (cry), tear (rip); etc etc.
I am a native English speaker. I've studied French, German, Korean, Chinese, a little bit of Japanese, a little bit of Spanish and dabbled briefly with Tagalog. For me, the most difficult has been Chinese, with French, Spanish, and Tagalog being the easiest. I can't speak to any difficulty learning English because I was reading novels at age 4 and don't remember any issues with the language. My "English is considered difficult" is based entirely on my study of other languages, the test mentioned above, and my experiences living with and dealing with other languages and their native speakers.