In Vista and Windows 7, they made the Start menu WORSE -- it doesn't seem to occur to them that this might be another big reason people are using it less. Recall, the old Start menu expanded out broadly with as many of your programs as possible; then they confined it to a tiny more finicky area where firstly it takes longer to appear, and secondly you have to work harder to scroll through the thing looking for your application.
Yeah, because terrorists always call the media and tell them "hey, I'm trying to commit some terrorist acts here and I'm being stopped, it's an outrage". Are you really this thick? It's fscking obvious this is just an innocent teenage girl who tried to buy an iPad, the average teenage girl wouldn't reasonably guess that doing that would actually be illegal.
I'm guessing she didn't know --- the 'reasonable person' does not expect that simply buying a stupid iPad for your relative can put you in jail, so she could hardly have guessed it. The problem is that this law is not reasonable.
But a business is naturally going to avoid taking the risk.. I mean, the store owner has to ask "what if" - "what if this ends up in the wrong hands, and the trail leads back to us, it could have major negative implications, possibly even putting my store out of business or risking exposure on our part to prosecution".... the law forces the business owner's hand to err on the side of caution.
There are indeed heavy legal restrictions on selling products for export to Iran, and in this case, the store employee overheard her say it was to be a gift for her cousin in Iran. The problem is that the laws are just bullshit fascism... I mean, let's be realistic here, does anyone really think Iran's nuclear ideals are going to be stopped in their tracks because they couldn't get an iPad? That's idiotic. These types of sanctions really just punish innocent people.
I know slashdotters are younger now but gosh, I was around at the turn of the century, it was only 12 years ago, and I promise you fatties weren't considered sexy then.
Actually, let me put it in much simpler terms to understand: Who would you prefer as a wife, miss "angry and desexualized" who looks at you with scorn every time you look at her with lust because you are "objectifying" her? Or someone like Marilyn Monroe who embraces and enjoys her sexuality as just an enjoyable part of being a woman?
Here, I transcribed the relevant bits for you - it couldn't be clearer what the goal is:
"Your protest in which you bare your breasts in public, you take your clothes off, why do you do that?"
"... we create a new opinion of nudity, a new opinion of women's nakedness... we try to attract [people] to our idea, to our message" "... it is small revolution, we changed opinion about women, we created a new icon of women, she's not slave now... she's a fighter.. yes she's still naked, but she's a fighter, she is angry, and first time, nudity of women is not controlled by man, as in sex industry, fashion industry, during our protest we are controlling our nudity by ourselves"
"Reclaimed it"
"We get back, we take back our nudity to women's hands, this is the message, this is the idea, this is our strategy, why we do that"
The picture also demonstrates it clearly - she's nude, but it's ugly and horrible. In reality, what they are doing is, in my view, very harmful... I think this is a major part of why we have such high divorce rates nowadays. Because women have been conditioned to feel ashamed to regard themselves as feminine, sexual, sensual beings (by things like this very slashdot topic decrying women being "sexy", and things like the recent Asus 'sexist tweet scandal'). It is also why, though there's a lot of porn in the US of A, the approach to sex and porn is one of strict mental compartmentalization. It's unsexy and creates unfulfilling sex lives etc. in marriage, not to mention women deliberately dressing plain and drab, and the effect that has on marriages. Western women are already wearing the psychological equivalents of the burqa.
"and that women are something more than sexual objects"
Um, that's essentially the same thing as I said.. the extremist reactions against so-called "objectification" have a logical consequence in the burqa, or our psychological equivalents of the burqa that already exist. And when modern feminists parade naked, even then it's with the aim of desexualization and de-objectification... it is *specifically* non-sexual, they want to even desexualize nakedness (and they do a good job of that too) -- they even state that outright, very literally, e.g. listen carefully to this interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18447765
Doesn't anybody notice that attempting to desexualize women, comprises the same goal underlying the promotion of Islamic female attire? Maybe the PC crowd would be happier if the women looked plain and wore nerdy glasses, as we now promote as some kind of alleged 'value goal'... and yet, why stop there - maybe the PC crowd would be even happier if we solved the problem entirely by jumping straight to the burqa. I'm surprised they aren't pushing that yet, but watch for it soon... the ultimate de-sexualization of females and the answer to all this alleged "sexism" "problem".
Please stop spreading this urban myth. "Fatties" have never been considered sexy. 'Very slightly more plump but still curvy', maybe, but there is a vast difference between that, and 'fatties'.
In 500 years time, genetic re-engineering will have long since become mainstream... all those flaws will be bio-engineered out and our offspring will be super-strong and highly intelligent... except for a small sub-species that thought it was sacrilegious to use such technology.
I've got news for/.'ers who might think that earning suckup points with women by hopping on the feminist bandwagon with this drivel about 'objectification' is going to help get them laid...
I'm sorry, the minute you voluntarily take a job that exploits your sexuality, you lose your right to complain when people treat you as a worker in that job. There is a line between "legitimate harassment" (i hate that that is even a valid phrase), and "illegal harassment", but lets not go pretending they're saints who deserve to never hear a foul word out of anyone mouths.
Wow, so you're justifying verbally abusing these women? I can picture you at these conferences, being an ass to these otherwise decent women.
Sorry to reply to own post, but of course, the important point to take away from the above is that sometimes you have to be willing and OK to let some crappy customers go. It's fine. You don't have to win every customer. Let them grumble a while, and then find someone else to abuse. Usually, they aren't going to change --- because we are talking about the personalities of individuals --- even if you painstakingly manage to cover every possible little detail in some contract, they will usually still be unreasonable bastards that end up annoying you and trying to make unreasonable demands. If you want to live long and not end up having a stroke, let them go.
I've found (having been there) that most reasonable customers are willing to be reasonable and fair if you have a frank discussion with them about what is fair. For example, and responding to the OP "lucky4udanny" now: If your original contract covered only 3 months of labor for initial development but didn't cover much for bugfixes, and you have already spent 3 months working, and this stuff wasn't covered properly in the contract, then an email to the customer explaining that you would effectively be working for free and that it would not be fair to do so, is reasonable. A reasonable customer would usually understand such an approach. Unreasonable customers will then expose their true colors further. If you were paid for four months worth of labor, but have only worked three, then it might be fair to say some additional work is still 'covered'.
One thing I learned from the GoDaddy guy's videos, "The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer". That is very true.
I've found that some clients are cheapskate asshats who think you're their slave and are highly demanding and bullying, and other clients are more reasonable and understand that your skills come at an hourly rate. Fortunately if you're a good programmer, even in this economy you aren't forced to take on all the 'bad' customers - I prefer to work with more reasonable customers.
Oh you can get that --- airline manufacturers, for example, do more or less get that --- but you "absolutely should" expect to pay a damn premium for it. Because programmers aren't slaves, awaiting your bidding to do work for you for free.
"terror (induced by reading my letter? Realizing he had made a big mistake)"
That I can understand, because probably he realized that she's completely rabidly bat-shit psychotic, and sometimes it's just not worth inflicting oneself by getting into fights with these types of people... as they say, 'never wrestle with a pig, you just get full of mud, and besides, the pig likes it'. I've run into people like this and sometimes it's best to just let them find someone else to focus their insane deranged attacks on. This woman is clearly completely unhinged and very probably dangerous... I would not be surprised at all if she tried to cause him physical harm in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
In Vista and Windows 7, they made the Start menu WORSE -- it doesn't seem to occur to them that this might be another big reason people are using it less. Recall, the old Start menu expanded out broadly with as many of your programs as possible; then they confined it to a tiny more finicky area where firstly it takes longer to appear, and secondly you have to work harder to scroll through the thing looking for your application.
Clearly, lungs are impossible.
If it weren't for the overly-restrictive zoning laws, most pubs would be in walking distance.
As opposed to what great liberal uproar against it exactly? Grow up.
Shh, you're just supposed to parrot the meme, even if it's not true.
Yeah, because terrorists always call the media and tell them "hey, I'm trying to commit some terrorist acts here and I'm being stopped, it's an outrage". Are you really this thick? It's fscking obvious this is just an innocent teenage girl who tried to buy an iPad, the average teenage girl wouldn't reasonably guess that doing that would actually be illegal.
I'm guessing she didn't know --- the 'reasonable person' does not expect that simply buying a stupid iPad for your relative can put you in jail, so she could hardly have guessed it. The problem is that this law is not reasonable.
But a business is naturally going to avoid taking the risk .. I mean, the store owner has to ask "what if" - "what if this ends up in the wrong hands, and the trail leads back to us, it could have major negative implications, possibly even putting my store out of business or risking exposure on our part to prosecution" .... the law forces the business owner's hand to err on the side of caution.
There are indeed heavy legal restrictions on selling products for export to Iran, and in this case, the store employee overheard her say it was to be a gift for her cousin in Iran. The problem is that the laws are just bullshit fascism ... I mean, let's be realistic here, does anyone really think Iran's nuclear ideals are going to be stopped in their tracks because they couldn't get an iPad? That's idiotic. These types of sanctions really just punish innocent people.
I know slashdotters are younger now but gosh, I was around at the turn of the century, it was only 12 years ago, and I promise you fatties weren't considered sexy then.
Actually, let me put it in much simpler terms to understand: Who would you prefer as a wife, miss "angry and desexualized" who looks at you with scorn every time you look at her with lust because you are "objectifying" her? Or someone like Marilyn Monroe who embraces and enjoys her sexuality as just an enjoyable part of being a woman?
Here, I transcribed the relevant bits for you - it couldn't be clearer what the goal is:
"Your protest in which you bare your breasts in public, you take your clothes off, why do you do that?"
"... we create a new opinion of nudity, a new opinion of women's nakedness ... we try to attract [people] to our idea, to our message" "... it is small revolution, we changed opinion about women, we created a new icon of women, she's not slave now ... she's a fighter .. yes she's still naked, but she's a fighter, she is angry, and first time, nudity of women is not controlled by man, as in sex industry, fashion industry, during our protest we are controlling our nudity by ourselves"
"Reclaimed it"
"We get back, we take back our nudity to women's hands, this is the message, this is the idea, this is our strategy, why we do that"
The picture also demonstrates it clearly - she's nude, but it's ugly and horrible. In reality, what they are doing is, in my view, very harmful ... I think this is a major part of why we have such high divorce rates nowadays. Because women have been conditioned to feel ashamed to regard themselves as feminine, sexual, sensual beings (by things like this very slashdot topic decrying women being "sexy", and things like the recent Asus 'sexist tweet scandal'). It is also why, though there's a lot of porn in the US of A, the approach to sex and porn is one of strict mental compartmentalization. It's unsexy and creates unfulfilling sex lives etc. in marriage, not to mention women deliberately dressing plain and drab, and the effect that has on marriages. Western women are already wearing the psychological equivalents of the burqa.
"and that women are something more than sexual objects"
Um, that's essentially the same thing as I said .. the extremist reactions against so-called "objectification" have a logical consequence in the burqa, or our psychological equivalents of the burqa that already exist. And when modern feminists parade naked, even then it's with the aim of desexualization and de-objectification ... it is *specifically* non-sexual, they want to even desexualize nakedness (and they do a good job of that too) -- they even state that outright, very literally, e.g. listen carefully to this interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18447765
Oh, I see, this is one of those things where you have to really, really stretch the definitions of words.
Doesn't anybody notice that attempting to desexualize women, comprises the same goal underlying the promotion of Islamic female attire? Maybe the PC crowd would be happier if the women looked plain and wore nerdy glasses, as we now promote as some kind of alleged 'value goal' ... and yet, why stop there - maybe the PC crowd would be even happier if we solved the problem entirely by jumping straight to the burqa. I'm surprised they aren't pushing that yet, but watch for it soon ... the ultimate de-sexualization of females and the answer to all this alleged "sexism" "problem".
[Citation needed]
Please stop spreading this urban myth. "Fatties" have never been considered sexy. 'Very slightly more plump but still curvy', maybe, but there is a vast difference between that, and 'fatties'.
In 500 years time, genetic re-engineering will have long since become mainstream ... all those flaws will be bio-engineered out and our offspring will be super-strong and highly intelligent ... except for a small sub-species that thought it was sacrilegious to use such technology.
Funny thing about that "exploited" labor is that it WANTS to be "exploited". Odd definition of exploitation that.
I've got news for /.'ers who might think that earning suckup points with women by hopping on the feminist bandwagon with this drivel about 'objectification' is going to help get them laid ...
I'm sorry, the minute you voluntarily take a job that exploits your sexuality, you lose your right to complain when people treat you as a worker in that job. There is a line between "legitimate harassment" (i hate that that is even a valid phrase), and "illegal harassment", but lets not go pretending they're saints who deserve to never hear a foul word out of anyone mouths.
Wow, so you're justifying verbally abusing these women? I can picture you at these conferences, being an ass to these otherwise decent women.
Sorry to reply to own post, but of course, the important point to take away from the above is that sometimes you have to be willing and OK to let some crappy customers go. It's fine. You don't have to win every customer. Let them grumble a while, and then find someone else to abuse. Usually, they aren't going to change --- because we are talking about the personalities of individuals --- even if you painstakingly manage to cover every possible little detail in some contract, they will usually still be unreasonable bastards that end up annoying you and trying to make unreasonable demands. If you want to live long and not end up having a stroke, let them go.
I've found (having been there) that most reasonable customers are willing to be reasonable and fair if you have a frank discussion with them about what is fair. For example, and responding to the OP "lucky4udanny" now: If your original contract covered only 3 months of labor for initial development but didn't cover much for bugfixes, and you have already spent 3 months working, and this stuff wasn't covered properly in the contract, then an email to the customer explaining that you would effectively be working for free and that it would not be fair to do so, is reasonable. A reasonable customer would usually understand such an approach. Unreasonable customers will then expose their true colors further. If you were paid for four months worth of labor, but have only worked three, then it might be fair to say some additional work is still 'covered'.
One thing I learned from the GoDaddy guy's videos, "The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer". That is very true.
I've found that some clients are cheapskate asshats who think you're their slave and are highly demanding and bullying, and other clients are more reasonable and understand that your skills come at an hourly rate. Fortunately if you're a good programmer, even in this economy you aren't forced to take on all the 'bad' customers - I prefer to work with more reasonable customers.
Oh you can get that --- airline manufacturers, for example, do more or less get that --- but you "absolutely should" expect to pay a damn premium for it. Because programmers aren't slaves, awaiting your bidding to do work for you for free.
"terror (induced by reading my letter? Realizing he had made a big mistake)"
That I can understand, because probably he realized that she's completely rabidly bat-shit psychotic, and sometimes it's just not worth inflicting oneself by getting into fights with these types of people ... as they say, 'never wrestle with a pig, you just get full of mud, and besides, the pig likes it'. I've run into people like this and sometimes it's best to just let them find someone else to focus their insane deranged attacks on. This woman is clearly completely unhinged and very probably dangerous ... I would not be surprised at all if she tried to cause him physical harm in some way.
You mean there are no ways to at least try find middle grounds in particular situations? Gee.