Because, its the way we were taught to write. Right or wrong, it is what it is. Why the fight to put an end to the evil double space?
NOONE is taught this anymore. Heck if you read the practical typography breakdown and read the graphs in the original article they tested people who habitually double space and people who don't. The only group that showed improvement is people who habitually double space. Thus the entire article isn't that interesting. People who double space read faster when double spaced. That's not useful and it doesn't do anything.
In a world where people die of starvation (Even in the US), children can't afford shoes.
These women are not innocent little angles they knew exactly what they where doing,
It's kinda funny how the first quote is basically beggers can't be choosers and the second quote is shaming beggers for having no other choice.
Do prostitutes like being prostitutes or do they do it because it makes them money?
If you ever read any feminist thought on prostitution or read from some of the dominatrixs and sex workers out there you'll find that yes some of them enjoy the work but they enjoy it because they choose that work. They weren't coerced into it or forced to do it in order to get the job they really wanted.
I find it hilarious how all this discussion is focused on the women and none of it on Harvey? Where your argument for why Harvey should be able to forced women to have sex with him in order to get parts.
They did prostitute themselves, because they were part of an audition of many women with better talent than themselves
dude are we having a reasonable argument or are you just going to yell nonsense at me. Because if you think better women with talent weren't sucked into the sexism of casting couches then you're literally in need of mental health assistance.
they chose to skip the audition and take the shortcut with Weinstein
dude you don't understand how any of this works. Sleeping with Weinstein wasn't a shortcut. it was the only way in to the audition.
Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.
Um.. dude the whole point is that male directors weren't chosen for their sex. Female directors were. Male directors were chosen for their skills. Female directors were chosen to check a diversity box. As someone to hire so they can go back to hiring the regular (i.e. Male) directors.
Do you really not understand that women don't like it when you whip your dick out?
Women may not have liked Harvey Weinstein's dick in terms of sex, but they certainly liked the fact that they could gain massive economic advantages by sleeping with him.
Any successful actress who slept with Weinstein and didn't report him for rape right away should be considered a prostitute: she traded sex for money. The fact that now that they are old, rich, and ugly, they regret the deal they made doesn't change that fact one bit.
No. They didn't. They recognized that the only way up was through Harvey but that is very different from saying they liked it. The entire point of the scandal was that most of them hated it but felt they had no choice. They aren't prostitutes. Weinstein is a pimp forcing people to blow him. If the actresses were all running trains on Harvey without his asking you might have a point but they weren't.
if you seach the comments for AOL you'll see that isn't true. He's simply maintained his old AOL account and doesn't use it for anything work related. It's his junk account. Heck my sister still has her old AOL account but it's not her primary one.
Actually no. That's not censorship unless it's done specifically to deny or suppress that knowledge from others. Burning your own book that you don't like is not.
Censorship is still legal in private forums by individuals
So is it censorship or isn't it? Because the first one says it isn't the second one says it is. Gotta be consistent and I was. My point is that it's all censorship but only the government's censorship is illegal.
TBH, what are private forums today (facebook, etc.) have become so prevalent and powerful they should be subject to more regulation limiting their ability to censor speech (IMHO)
Sure that's a fine opinion to have. I'veheard decent and reasonable arguments for it (though I personally disagree). It's nothing to do with my statement (just for the record) because I'm dealing in what is not what should be.
If I find words in a book (that I own) that I don't like. I'm perfectly allowed to burn that book. That's censorship.
That's not censorship. it's burning a book.
What if my book is the book all my kids and their friends read like I'm a personal library. What if I'm not a person but a small not for profit library operating out of a house. What if I'm an online forum of ebook. It doesn't matter none of it matters until it's the government. if I'm reddit it's no less censorship than if I'm burning my personal book. People use censorship to describe actions that reddit takes and I use censorship in the same way.
And if your Trotsky-esque ranting threatens my liberties I am perfectly allowed to smash-yo-face. Eh hoser ? Your drooling face or my wisdomful speech... what's more important? I know the answer to that question.
as soon as you talk about violence against people we're on different pages. You lose.
"hate speech" is, without exception, an artificial construct designed to circumvent free speech. The moment someone is offended by something spoken or written, it becomes "hate speech". Well guess what folks, that's exactly what freedom of speech is intended to protect.
no it wasn't constructed to circumvent free speech. it was recognized as a consistent quality of speech that led to things like lynchings and other forms
of racialized violence.
Glad there is still a company willing to stand up for freedom of expression - which (unfortunately) means defending the most distasteful expressions no matter how little you agree with them - since the rest don't need it.
hey at least you said unfortunately. So many slashdotters have been cheering gleefully like hate speech is a necessary product for a society to work rather than an unavoidable by product of a working society.
It's foolish to think that racist language on an internet website equals racism. It's about shock value, and getting attention.
We live in a world where the word "fuck" barely bats an eye. It's only natural to expect the few words, and phrases people can say that ALWAYS get attention to be prolific.
Most of these people aren't racists, they're just assholes desperate for attention. You can call someone a shithead all day long and get no response. If you call them something racist, not only will they respond, but so will several other people, thus feeding the trolls.
The First Amendment protects it in the real world, and Reddit has the right to allow it on their privately owned servers.
That's an end of it.
No one says they don't have the right. That's moronic that people like you keep trying to bring that up. Of course they have the right. that's not even germane to the debate. Also you have the right to pee standing up even if you're a girl. But that's about as useful to this debate as what you're saying.
The point isn't that reddit does or does not have the right. The point is that as you say those people are just assholes desperate for attention and that by allowing them to flourish on reddit. Reddits admins are just assholes desperate for attention.
Every time we point this out and people like you bring up "They're allowed to do it" you sound like a two year old trying to argue global politics. You just prove you don't even have the mental tools to participate. If we call reddit out for being just assholes desperate for attention we're not saying they're legally obligated to not be just assholes desperate for attention. We're saying you can't be just assholes desperate for attention and pretend you aren't just assholes desperate for attention. We're saying We see you reddit and you are being just assholes desperate for attention so either stop it or stop saying you aren't.
Perhaps you don't understand how the Slashdot moderation system works. We are the moderators. And you are free to mod down any comments that you feel are trolling, incitefull or just off topic.
Perhaps you don't know how the reporting flags work. It's supposed to enable admins to remove content that is beyond just Offtopic or Flamebait
structural racism
I don't see anything in the design of Slashdot that excludes any particular group. In fact, we don't even require that you identify yourself by race or gender anymore. So there is nothing about this forum that excludes anyone.
And for the record structural racism isn't individual racism which is what you're talking about. Structural racism is like how on slashdot everyone feels perfectly content to belittle minorities because there's no consequence for doing so
Only on Slashdot. Speech is singular. "said speech IS permissible". Illiterate American idiots.
Why do Americans keep writing "women" instead of "woman" all the time? Is it that difficult?
dude pick a lane you're all over the place.
Otherwise, why are non-whites moving to white countries, if not to live around white people? Why aren't millions of white people moving to non-white countries every year?
It's called gentrification and white people do it all the time. Pushing minorities out of their own spaces is like a white person special move.
Reddit has been shutting down many, many subreddits recently.
They are taking responsibility for user-generated content, and once they do that they don't get to only take responsibility for some.
I think it would have been much smarter for Reddit to remain neutral and claim "common-carrier" status, but their virtue-signaling management wouldn't have it.
I hear Voat.co is where the banned communities are going and their stack happens to still be open source, so that's an additional level of transparency.
If you look at what they take down and what they refuse to take down. They are making the semblance of taking responsibility. They are taking down small fries and ignoring the shot callers and big ballers. The ones people have been asking them to remove. Big subreddits which are responsible for breaking the rules and mass harassing others time and time again. They've done everything in their power NOT to be responsible. They've changed the/r/all algorithm to exclude those subs. They've redone the advertising to specifically ensure that those subreddits don't gets ads (which means the worst subs are getting an ad-free experience). Heck if you subscribe to one of those subs you don't get ads at all on reddit. Rather than hurting those subs it makes them better. They don't have ads and the rest of us subsidize them by the money we bring in to reddit (via ads or gold). Voat is a trash heap but sure I have no problem with voat and gab being heaps where the trash puts itself.
While the distinction is appreciated, in the USA the government is us. A government of the people. We should not be censoring each other. If we don't like the words, we don't have to read them.
No the distinction is VERY important because we SHOULD be censoring each other. We have no obligation to put up with things we don't like. If I find words in a book (that I own) that I don't like. I'm perfectly allowed to burn that book. That's censorship. But it's not the government. The book can still be found on bookshelves in other people's homes and I can't demand that city hall forced bookstores to remove it and burn all copies.
That is why the distinction is important. A bookstore can find all copies of the book and burn it. They can't make the government force me to turn my copy back into the bookstore and burn my copy. Again the distinction is important. We're all allowed to censor. We ARE NOT the government. We are allowed freedoms that the government can not be allowed to have. I can kick you out of my home for being a Protestant. I can kick you out of my home for being a woman. The government can not do that.
It tries to turn a device whos design is meant to be a mini tablet into a phone. Nonsense.
Stop holding a tablet to your ear. Move those ear and mouth "matched" speakers and mikes to a place where they comfortly match for tablet use.
And finally.. Stop making bluetooth headsets and optional gadget for extra money. Deliver a proper one with your "phone" and stop making people do this ugly and uncomfy "hold it to your ear" stunt.
wait what? is this AC complaining about people using their phones as phones?
When did "notch" become a technology thing we're expected to know? Maybe explain what it is for people who don't have any Apple friends FFS.
To me when I hear the word notch, I assume that means that there is part of the phone cut out; but that doesn't make any sense and I can't imagine why anyone would want that.
A "notch" in phonespeak must be something than a notch? Maybe a section of the screen that is left blank for some reason- or to be prefilled with ads for other apple products or something equally obnoxious.
The only notches I want are on my bedpost.
In short for someone reading this far and still confused.
The idea of the notch is based in bragging numbers. I don't know what the bezel did to phone developers. I assume the bezel slept with phonedev's mother, but they hate it with a passion. SO much so that not being content so have the screen go all the way up to the front facing camera and wraping around the sides of the phone and pushing out the home screen button on the lower side. The screen is now expected to go all the way around the camera. Creating the effect that the camera made a notch in the phones display and stuck a camera in it. Now phone makers can claim their screen is another centimeter longer if you discount the whole notch in the middle.
The whole thing is stupid because that notch is just screen you can't use, no one wants to watch a video with a camera sized black space on the left side. Thus they start attaching gestures to each side of the notch. and now they're touting it as a feature. "Look at our screen it's a full cm longer AND you get cool new gestures that no one asked for."
I swear some phonedevs won't be satisfied until the entire phone is screen and you have no possible way to hold it without activating the screen.
They are for giving somebody over the telephone on hand-written on a piece of paper and similar situations, where you want to write or memorize as little as possible.
exactly. If I have to type a URL from one computer to another. I used to pipe it into Goo.gl so I wasn't typing huge overly long links.
yes but that's circumstantial. They're monsters for driving when they should not be. They're not monsters for driving. Nothing inherent in driving and hitting someone makes the driver a monster. It's when it's revealed the driver was drunk or POGOing or speeding or what not that they become a monster.
There is nothing in the constitution about MJ dispensaries. There is, however, plenty in the constitution granting control of immigration policy to the federal government.
Yes yes.. only the constitution matters. No other law is viable right? If it's not in the constitution why are we even talking about it. What next? we listen to people who hold "court" in rooms with fringed flags?
Slashdot Mirror
Because, its the way we were taught to write. Right or wrong, it is what it is. Why the fight to put an end to the evil double space?
NOONE is taught this anymore. Heck if you read the practical typography breakdown and read the graphs in the original article they tested people who habitually double space and people who don't. The only group that showed improvement is people who habitually double space. Thus the entire article isn't that interesting. People who double space read faster when double spaced. That's not useful and it doesn't do anything.
It's kinda funny how the first quote is basically beggers can't be choosers and the second quote is shaming beggers for having no other choice.
If you ever read any feminist thought on prostitution or read from some of the dominatrixs and sex workers out there you'll find that yes some of them enjoy the work but they enjoy it because they choose that work. They weren't coerced into it or forced to do it in order to get the job they really wanted. I find it hilarious how all this discussion is focused on the women and none of it on Harvey? Where your argument for why Harvey should be able to forced women to have sex with him in order to get parts.
dude are we having a reasonable argument or are you just going to yell nonsense at me. Because if you think better women with talent weren't sucked into the sexism of casting couches then you're literally in need of mental health assistance.
dude you don't understand how any of this works. Sleeping with Weinstein wasn't a shortcut. it was the only way in to the audition.
Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.
Um.. dude the whole point is that male directors weren't chosen for their sex. Female directors were. Male directors were chosen for their skills. Female directors were chosen to check a diversity box. As someone to hire so they can go back to hiring the regular (i.e. Male) directors.
Women may not have liked Harvey Weinstein's dick in terms of sex, but they certainly liked the fact that they could gain massive economic advantages by sleeping with him.
Any successful actress who slept with Weinstein and didn't report him for rape right away should be considered a prostitute: she traded sex for money. The fact that now that they are old, rich, and ugly, they regret the deal they made doesn't change that fact one bit.
No. They didn't. They recognized that the only way up was through Harvey but that is very different from saying they liked it. The entire point of the scandal was that most of them hated it but felt they had no choice. They aren't prostitutes. Weinstein is a pimp forcing people to blow him. If the actresses were all running trains on Harvey without his asking you might have a point but they weren't.
if you seach the comments for AOL you'll see that isn't true. He's simply maintained his old AOL account and doesn't use it for anything work related. It's his junk account. Heck my sister still has her old AOL account but it's not her primary one.
Actually no. That's not censorship unless it's done specifically to deny or suppress that knowledge from others. Burning your own book that you don't like is not.
Censorship is still legal in private forums by individuals
So is it censorship or isn't it? Because the first one says it isn't the second one says it is. Gotta be consistent and I was. My point is that it's all censorship but only the government's censorship is illegal.
TBH, what are private forums today (facebook, etc.) have become so prevalent and powerful they should be subject to more regulation limiting their ability to censor speech (IMHO)
Sure that's a fine opinion to have. I'veheard decent and reasonable arguments for it (though I personally disagree). It's nothing to do with my statement (just for the record) because I'm dealing in what is not what should be.
So, you have no point.
If I find words in a book (that I own) that I don't like. I'm perfectly allowed to burn that book. That's censorship.
That's not censorship. it's burning a book.
What if my book is the book all my kids and their friends read like I'm a personal library. What if I'm not a person but a small not for profit library operating out of a house. What if I'm an online forum of ebook. It doesn't matter none of it matters until it's the government. if I'm reddit it's no less censorship than if I'm burning my personal book. People use censorship to describe actions that reddit takes and I use censorship in the same way.
And if your Trotsky-esque ranting threatens my liberties I am perfectly allowed to smash-yo-face. Eh hoser ? Your drooling face or my wisdomful speech ... what's more important? I know the answer to that question.
as soon as you talk about violence against people we're on different pages. You lose.
"hate speech" is, without exception, an artificial construct designed to circumvent free speech. The moment someone is offended by something spoken or written, it becomes "hate speech". Well guess what folks, that's exactly what freedom of speech is intended to protect.
no it wasn't constructed to circumvent free speech. it was recognized as a consistent quality of speech that led to things like lynchings and other forms of racialized violence.
Glad there is still a company willing to stand up for freedom of expression - which (unfortunately) means defending the most distasteful expressions no matter how little you agree with them - since the rest don't need it.
hey at least you said unfortunately. So many slashdotters have been cheering gleefully like hate speech is a necessary product for a society to work rather than an unavoidable by product of a working society.
It's foolish to think that racist language on an internet website equals racism. It's about shock value, and getting attention. We live in a world where the word "fuck" barely bats an eye. It's only natural to expect the few words, and phrases people can say that ALWAYS get attention to be prolific. Most of these people aren't racists, they're just assholes desperate for attention. You can call someone a shithead all day long and get no response. If you call them something racist, not only will they respond, but so will several other people, thus feeding the trolls. The First Amendment protects it in the real world, and Reddit has the right to allow it on their privately owned servers. That's an end of it.
No one says they don't have the right. That's moronic that people like you keep trying to bring that up. Of course they have the right. that's not even germane to the debate. Also you have the right to pee standing up even if you're a girl. But that's about as useful to this debate as what you're saying. The point isn't that reddit does or does not have the right. The point is that as you say those people are just assholes desperate for attention and that by allowing them to flourish on reddit. Reddits admins are just assholes desperate for attention. Every time we point this out and people like you bring up "They're allowed to do it" you sound like a two year old trying to argue global politics. You just prove you don't even have the mental tools to participate. If we call reddit out for being just assholes desperate for attention we're not saying they're legally obligated to not be just assholes desperate for attention. We're saying you can't be just assholes desperate for attention and pretend you aren't just assholes desperate for attention. We're saying We see you reddit and you are being just assholes desperate for attention so either stop it or stop saying you aren't.
the /. mods will happily let them stand
Perhaps you don't understand how the Slashdot moderation system works. We are the moderators. And you are free to mod down any comments that you feel are trolling, incitefull or just off topic.
Perhaps you don't know how the reporting flags work. It's supposed to enable admins to remove content that is beyond just Offtopic or Flamebait
structural racism
I don't see anything in the design of Slashdot that excludes any particular group. In fact, we don't even require that you identify yourself by race or gender anymore. So there is nothing about this forum that excludes anyone.
And for the record structural racism isn't individual racism which is what you're talking about. Structural racism is like how on slashdot everyone feels perfectly content to belittle minorities because there's no consequence for doing so
Only on Slashdot. Speech is singular. "said speech IS permissible". Illiterate American idiots.
Why do Americans keep writing "women" instead of "woman" all the time? Is it that difficult?
dude pick a lane you're all over the place.
It's called gentrification and white people do it all the time. Pushing minorities out of their own spaces is like a white person special move.
Reddit has been shutting down many, many subreddits recently.
They are taking responsibility for user-generated content, and once they do that they don't get to only take responsibility for some.
I think it would have been much smarter for Reddit to remain neutral and claim "common-carrier" status, but their virtue-signaling management wouldn't have it.
I hear Voat.co is where the banned communities are going and their stack happens to still be open source, so that's an additional level of transparency.
If you look at what they take down and what they refuse to take down. They are making the semblance of taking responsibility. They are taking down small fries and ignoring the shot callers and big ballers. The ones people have been asking them to remove. Big subreddits which are responsible for breaking the rules and mass harassing others time and time again. They've done everything in their power NOT to be responsible. They've changed the /r/all algorithm to exclude those subs. They've redone the advertising to specifically ensure that those subreddits don't gets ads (which means the worst subs are getting an ad-free experience). Heck if you subscribe to one of those subs you don't get ads at all on reddit. Rather than hurting those subs it makes them better. They don't have ads and the rest of us subsidize them by the money we bring in to reddit (via ads or gold). Voat is a trash heap but sure I have no problem with voat and gab being heaps where the trash puts itself.
At one point or another, every one of us have said something racist without realizing it: http://www.rsdb.org/
So to make this work, should sites just ban us all eventually?
At one point or another, every law has punished an innocent person. So to make this work, should all laws be repealed?
While the distinction is appreciated, in the USA the government is us. A government of the people. We should not be censoring each other. If we don't like the words, we don't have to read them.
No the distinction is VERY important because we SHOULD be censoring each other. We have no obligation to put up with things we don't like. If I find words in a book (that I own) that I don't like. I'm perfectly allowed to burn that book. That's censorship. But it's not the government. The book can still be found on bookshelves in other people's homes and I can't demand that city hall forced bookstores to remove it and burn all copies.
That is why the distinction is important. A bookstore can find all copies of the book and burn it. They can't make the government force me to turn my copy back into the bookstore and burn my copy. Again the distinction is important. We're all allowed to censor. We ARE NOT the government. We are allowed freedoms that the government can not be allowed to have. I can kick you out of my home for being a Protestant. I can kick you out of my home for being a woman. The government can not do that.
"The notch" is insane.
It tries to turn a device whos design is meant to be a mini tablet into a phone. Nonsense.
Stop holding a tablet to your ear. Move those ear and mouth "matched" speakers and mikes to a place where they comfortly match for tablet use.
And finally.. Stop making bluetooth headsets and optional gadget for extra money. Deliver a proper one with your "phone" and stop making people do this ugly and uncomfy "hold it to your ear" stunt.
wait what? is this AC complaining about people using their phones as phones?
When did "notch" become a technology thing we're expected to know? Maybe explain what it is for people who don't have any Apple friends FFS.
To me when I hear the word notch, I assume that means that there is part of the phone cut out; but that doesn't make any sense and I can't imagine why anyone would want that.
A "notch" in phonespeak must be something than a notch? Maybe a section of the screen that is left blank for some reason- or to be prefilled with ads for other apple products or something equally obnoxious.
The only notches I want are on my bedpost.
In short for someone reading this far and still confused.
The idea of the notch is based in bragging numbers. I don't know what the bezel did to phone developers. I assume the bezel slept with phonedev's mother, but they hate it with a passion. SO much so that not being content so have the screen go all the way up to the front facing camera and wraping around the sides of the phone and pushing out the home screen button on the lower side. The screen is now expected to go all the way around the camera. Creating the effect that the camera made a notch in the phones display and stuck a camera in it. Now phone makers can claim their screen is another centimeter longer if you discount the whole notch in the middle.
The whole thing is stupid because that notch is just screen you can't use, no one wants to watch a video with a camera sized black space on the left side. Thus they start attaching gestures to each side of the notch. and now they're touting it as a feature. "Look at our screen it's a full cm longer AND you get cool new gestures that no one asked for."
I swear some phonedevs won't be satisfied until the entire phone is screen and you have no possible way to hold it without activating the screen.
That was a legitimately interesting story.
They are for giving somebody over the telephone on hand-written on a piece of paper and similar situations, where you want to write or memorize as little as possible.
exactly. If I have to type a URL from one computer to another. I used to pipe it into Goo.gl so I wasn't typing huge overly long links.
more like UTF-8 classes.
yes but that's circumstantial. They're monsters for driving when they should not be. They're not monsters for driving. Nothing inherent in driving and hitting someone makes the driver a monster. It's when it's revealed the driver was drunk or POGOing or speeding or what not that they become a monster.
There is nothing in the constitution about MJ dispensaries. There is, however, plenty in the constitution granting control of immigration policy to the federal government.
Yes yes.. only the constitution matters. No other law is viable right? If it's not in the constitution why are we even talking about it. What next? we listen to people who hold "court" in rooms with fringed flags?
I object to your characterization. Pepe the frog is an alt-right nazi hate symbol, not a gay frog.
he's also fictional. REAL frogs are all gay because of the water. that horrible horrible water.