could you code up a free acrobat reader client? how about SATAN, can you make a GPL one of those? want to redocument mysql? or make a nes emulator? what about majordomo? or xmame? how about mpg123?
Reading your little statement there about "women centric distributions and male bash" proves that you know nothing about what takes place on the linuxchix lists.
I encourage you and other folks who think that's the truth to go check out the website and dig into the PUBLIC archives of the lists. You might also be surprised to find out that there are quite a few men on each of the lists.
Grow up and don't be so egoistic as to assume that all women talk about is men when in the company of other women.
You are correct... any traffic from an I2 institution will take an I2 route to download from another I2 locale before it bothers trying anything else, regardless of what information it may be...
It makes for a sweet network install off of certain.edu sites:o)
I agree.. there isn't anything wrong with a woman whose domain is the home. I have a lot of respect for women who do that sort of thing... and there are men who do it too.
I think the original point was, however, that women in general should stop going to work and just stay home, spending her "man's" money and raising children.
You think YOU can sympathise with the problems women in the "industry" have to go through as the women on LinuxChix do? Have you *read* any of the LinuxChix archives?
The point of LinuxChix is not that it is a "linux girls club"(there are plenty of men on the lists as well), the point is that it is a place women can go and be *comfortable* with being a female hacker/geek/whatever.
You can't get *anywhere* without self-confidence, and that is what the point of these "clubs" is: to help women feel more comfortable with who they are.
Eventually, yes, "complete integration" would be nice, but if at every corner of "complete integration" city you see a jerk telling you "women can't be in engineering!" or "women will only make good project leaders" or "women only think they can code" or "are you just here with HIM or do you know *anything* about linux?", would you really want to go outside?
I don't think so. Read the archives. Join the list. Get a real perspective before you tell us all how it is.
There is no simple solution. Making the open source community "accessible to women" isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.
The pages aren't even *displayed* in AOL-IE. This isn't a proxying problem, or they would get errors or different telling problems (we have dealt with proxy problems in IE/Netscape/etc before) rather than just plain ol' nothing.
It is not *quite* the same as internet explorer outside of AOL.
A story: we have virtual courses here at the university (IIS, asp, etc). People using internet explorer have it easy because IE makes a lot of assumptions about what you meant when it hits EOF (closes all of your tags for you, blah blah), so you can see most of the pages even if there's an error there. Netscape gives up on this and wants complete and formal HTML.
The websites are built in front page. Problem 2. Netscape users see errors in the scripts while IE users see what was "supposed to" appear.
What happens when an AOL user (regardless of version) comes up to the website to login? Nothing! They don't even GET the login screen let alone anything after it.
IE 5.0/4.0 on their own work fine with the site. There IS a difference in AOL's version. I think the previous poster was correct when he used the phrase "based on".:o)
Unfortunately, this also brings up explaining to an AOL user the difference between the "internet", "AOL", and "Netscape" (or IE out of AOL). They seldom understand.
"And my cousin, a female ChemE major, said it's no different."
My junior level ChE classes... minimum 3/4 men, maximum 1/4 women. Since my freshman year, more men have dropped the ChE coursework than women. The department as a whole has fewer women though, around 15% max (generously). We're a pretty small department and lots of people skip out on departmental seminars so it's hard to tell.:o)
Junior level CS classes...hubby says about 10% women. Same story with the women sticking it out over the men. (CS is my 2nd degree so I'm not quite junior level with that yet;o))
In my 2nd half of engineering physics (electricity stuff) the TA had the cojones to say (to me) "I didn't know they let women in engineering!" The jaws of myself, my husband, and our lab partner all dropped hard. I would constantly argue the purpose of application vs. theory to him in a lab setting (90% of the people in the course were engineering and not physics majors anyway), and he would end up saying "no!" and ignoring everything else I had to say. Not many other girls in there, either.
Many of the women in my engineering courses don't seem to be the geeky type, and/or most hide it for social purposes... like they assume people won't like them if they let their enjoyment of what they're doing come through, or talk about it at any other time than during classes. I assume it's the same with girls in high school... and is part of the reason they just never get into it.
I love to talk about geeky stuff... whether it be work, code, energy transfer, or what cool gadget we'll be buying next. I wish there were more geeky girls out there I could chat with, though. Most of the geek-ish girls I know are either pseduo-geeks (just can't chat with someone who doesn't know what they're talkin about) or the social types who won't talk to you about anything like that for fear of their ego (or something).
I guess my parents made an effort to encourage that I pursue whatever I wanted rather than what other people thought... though it stung a tad when I was made fun of or criticised, I was always encouraged 10 times as much.
Are there any more reliable sources to confirm Einstein as the person of the century? (I noticed the Drudge Report said it would be "revealed" on Sunday).
I see over at the Time 100 he's the "featured profile", but that doesn't confirm anything.
The Church of All Worlds, an *idea* Heinlein invented, is not a *religion* Heinlein invented.
If you notice, Heinlein writes a lot about Paganism in his books. Characters that are Wiccan, witches, or any other brand of Paganism are found, and there is not conflict surrounding them (as in Heinlein was very comfortable with this idea, not seeing a major social conflict).
CAW is a group founded on Pagan ground. Heinlein did come up with the idea, yes, but he did not "invent" Paganism; if he did he must have been several thousand years old when he wrote his first book.
The Church of All Worlds may sound a little fluffy bunnyish and some members (leaders?) sound as if they believe they "invented" Paganism/polyamoury/etc, but it is not a religion. If you feel that the crux of their belief system, Paganism (CAW is merely an organisation comprised of Pagan people), is delusional, that is a topic for another discussion.
Just like going out to the bars, being social at parties, or being social at work, being "social" online isn't going to work for everyone.
I met my husband on a BBS in seattle before we went out to college... "hey, I'm going to school out there", "cool, me too". So we chatted online, found common interests, met IRL before we went off to school, and saw each other a lot while we were in school.
We're still in school, and two years after meeting we married. Worked for me! But that doesn't mean it'll work for someone else...
That was on a BBS (duh I already said that), which is a little different than the "big bad internet" is now. It was local to my area (well, as local as "Seattle" can get), it took a certain style of person to seek out and hang out on a BBS (after the 'internet' had already developed), thus narrowing down the potential "field" of people-i-wouldn't-go-near-if-i-was-paid. People knew each other on the BBS, which you can't really say for IRC unless you scope it down to a single channel (or genre of channels).
I would say we shouldn't narrow ourselves to any field. Just because you know people who hit it off on IRC doesn't mean you will, and you shouldn't necessarily *try*. Be social in any place and you are bound to meet people, eventually someone you hit it off with well.
Going out and being "social" in a bar or at parties isn't for everyone. Some people meet their SO's at work (or in work-related places) without going out of their way to be excessively social. If you realise that your "potential" mate could be anywhere in the world, internet or otherwise, you're bound to find someone. Being social is being social whether it's on the 'net, in a bar, or at work.
Just be careful on the 'net before you go out and meet someone IRL. All (except one) of the internet folks I've met IRL have come from BBS', though I'm sure that will change, and a BBS is quite different from what the 'net has become. If you get a bad feeling about someone on the 'net, listen to it, just like in 'real life'.
from the article: The companies weren't there to throw violators in the slammer but would have exchanged genuine software for illegal copies. Then the illegal programs would serve as evidence to hunt down the real perpetrators -- the people who actually copied and sold the software.
maybe that's the problem... people *know* they are pirating software;o)
how would they really "hunt down" the perpetrators? traced registration numbers to the original person that registered the program??
change that to INSECURE publicly-accessible computer...
from amazon.com's info on 1-click However, as an added safety measure, if you are using a public computer terminal or a shared computer, you should not leave your 1-Click and Gift-Click ordering turned on when you are not using the computer.
If you are stupid, you will leave your information turned on on the insecure publicly-accessible computer.
You have to *turn it on* for the 1-click stuff to work... it's not just *there* as soon as you show up.
sheesh... you'd think people would find something more important to protest about... if it's just "another stoopid patent", why even bother? just roll your eyes and move on...
you don't HAVE to use the 1-click system... the good ol' standard shopping cart is still there...
also you can just give amazon your last four digits and a number to call to get the rest if you feel more "secure" over the phone;o)
it seems silly for a patent... i doubt it will hold any water (as someone else mentioned), however amazon appears to be making sure they have a hold on their "technology"
maybe there is more to it... the exact methods for keeping the numbers and so on...
the one-click system doesn't make a separate transaction out of every item... it "remembers" your information so all you do is choose sets of information (instead of typing them over and over)... so you have "one click" shopping
it *should* show you more information about 1-click.
excerpt: Your 1-Click settings include your shipping address, shipping method, and payment information. They are created when you use a credit card to make an order with Amazon.com that is not a gift or an out-of-print title. and... 1-Click ordering uses the same Netscape Secure Commerce Server as Shopping Cart ordering. All transactions made at Amazon.com on our secure server are covered by our security guarantee.
i don't think this is exactly the same as the passport system.. but i haven't *used* the passport system (and don't plan on it) so i can't be 100% sure
I have an aunt that is mentally retarded (Down's Syndrome). She is in her thirties IIRC, though has about the age-based "intelligence" of my six year old brother.
When she was young, she climbed. She ran. She was a kid and a half! But by your standards, she just wasn't good enough and should have been cut off her right to live just as soon as they found out she has Down's Syndrome.
My immediate family spent a LOT of time with her as I was growing up... meaning *I* spent a lot of time with her (I am the oldest of my siblings). Whenever my grandparents wanted time to "themselves" or something of the like, they would drop my aunt off at our house and we would "watch" her.
Yes, she is "troublesome". So is my six year old brother. So is my 17 year old brother. So am I. She does not "understand" things as easily as you or I do, it is harder for her to draw involved conclusions. Did we treat her as if she was stupid, or "trash" or like we'd been better off if she hadn't existed? Not in a million years!!
It is all in how you look at things. If you look at her as a human being capable of thought, love, and everything you and I are capable of, she becomes real. She becomes a window into ourselves... into who we are on a lower level. Who we wish we could show... she is uninhibited. She shows love on a whim... when you talk to her, she ends with "I love you" even though it doesn't seem quite right. She shows pleasure with things that make her happy and displeasure with things she knows she doesn't like.
She has less self control than you or I (just like my little brother), and has to be told to "turn off the water before it gets too deep" or "don't eat too much chocolate, it will make you feel sick". Sometimes *I* need to be reminded of what not to do... sometimes *I* need to be told.
Mentally retarded people are capable people. They may be "slow" by your standards... they might not be able to play quick coordination-oriented games. They may not be able to operate cash registers as quickly as you... but that's not their function.
I love that aunt more than any other I have... why? Because she is real. She is honest. And heck, she likes science fiction more than anyone I know!
Now, she is in a "home" for people "like her" with a very caring person that takes care of these women. They are people.
If you look at it as a "defect", they become easier to count and harder to look at. If you look at it as a window, as WHO THEY ARE, they become people.
If I have a mentally retarded child, I will do my best to make them feel like they are the most wonderful person on earth. If I have a "normal" child, I will do EXACTLY the same.
You have to WANT to make it work for things to work in ANY family, in ANY relationship. Mentally retarded people aren't any different in that respect.
Maybe your parents would have thought your hair colour was a "defect"... would you be so quick to say "defective" children weren't deserving of life then?
Until you are IN a family with a mentally retarded person, I do not believe you are fit to judge. I am not a "weak-minded Christian", and I would never dream of putting an end to the life of such a wonderful person.
She can think, she can dream, and she can *be*. She, however, cannot express it but through her eyes which are a direct window to her heart. Her speech is scattered, but if you want to talk to her, you can. But you have to WANT to talk to her.
I suppose you should join those people who attempt to "reconstruct" their retarded children and make them more "normal". Put them in "normal" schools and make them do "normal" work. Everyone needs to be "normal", right?
Maybe you should look at yourself before you are quick to judge about these "weak minded" people. Isn't destroying a "defective" child weak minded? Isn't that the easy way out?
Slashdot Mirror
I think he meant 105 F rather than C (in which case water would boil at 212 and not 100).
-nicole
are you volunteering?
could you code up a free acrobat reader client?
how about SATAN, can you make a GPL one of those?
want to redocument mysql? or make a nes emulator?
what about majordomo? or xmame?
how about mpg123?
sorry, I don't buy that argument
oops... > i mean
nuff said...
thank you for doing so :o)
-nicole
http://www.linuxchix.org/
h ives
http://www.linuxchix.org/docs/listinfo.html#arc
-nicole
Reading your little statement there about "women centric distributions and male bash" proves that you know nothing about what takes place on the linuxchix lists.
I encourage you and other folks who think that's the truth to go check out the website and dig into the PUBLIC archives of the lists. You might also be surprised to find out that there are quite a few men on each of the lists.
Grow up and don't be so egoistic as to assume that all women talk about is men when in the company of other women.
-nicole
You are correct... any traffic from an I2 institution will take an I2 route to download from another I2 locale before it bothers trying anything else, regardless of what information it may be...
.edu sites :o)
It makes for a sweet network install off of certain
-nicole
I agree.. there isn't anything wrong with a woman whose domain is the home. I have a lot of respect for women who do that sort of thing... and there are men who do it too.
I think the original point was, however, that women in general should stop going to work and just stay home, spending her "man's" money and raising children.
-nicole
You think YOU can sympathise with the problems women in the "industry" have to go through as the women on LinuxChix do? Have you *read* any of the LinuxChix archives?
The point of LinuxChix is not that it is a "linux girls club"(there are plenty of men on the lists as well), the point is that it is a place women can go and be *comfortable* with being a female hacker/geek/whatever.
You can't get *anywhere* without self-confidence, and that is what the point of these "clubs" is: to help women feel more comfortable with who they are.
Eventually, yes, "complete integration" would be nice, but if at every corner of "complete integration" city you see a jerk telling you "women can't be in engineering!" or "women will only make good project leaders" or "women only think they can code" or "are you just here with HIM or do you know *anything* about linux?", would you really want to go outside?
I don't think so. Read the archives. Join the list. Get a real perspective before you tell us all how it is.
There is no simple solution. Making the open source community "accessible to women" isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.
-nicole
The pages aren't even *displayed* in AOL-IE. This isn't a proxying problem, or they would get errors or different telling problems (we have dealt with proxy problems in IE/Netscape/etc before) rather than just plain ol' nothing.
It is not *quite* the same as internet explorer outside of AOL.
:o)
A story: we have virtual courses here at the university (IIS, asp, etc). People using internet explorer have it easy because IE makes a lot of assumptions about what you meant when it hits EOF (closes all of your tags for you, blah blah), so you can see most of the pages even if there's an error there. Netscape gives up on this and wants complete and formal HTML.
The websites are built in front page. Problem 2. Netscape users see errors in the scripts while IE users see what was "supposed to" appear.
What happens when an AOL user (regardless of version) comes up to the website to login? Nothing! They don't even GET the login screen let alone anything after it.
IE 5.0/4.0 on their own work fine with the site. There IS a difference in AOL's version. I think the previous poster was correct when he used the phrase "based on".
Unfortunately, this also brings up explaining to an AOL user the difference between the "internet", "AOL", and "Netscape" (or IE out of AOL). They seldom understand.
*laughs*
:o)
that was actually kind of funny.
"And my cousin, a female ChemE major, said it's no different."
:o)
;o))
My junior level ChE classes... minimum 3/4 men, maximum 1/4 women. Since my freshman year, more men have dropped the ChE coursework than women. The department as a whole has fewer women though, around 15% max (generously). We're a pretty small department and lots of people skip out on departmental seminars so it's hard to tell.
Junior level CS classes...hubby says about 10% women. Same story with the women sticking it out over the men. (CS is my 2nd degree so I'm not quite junior level with that yet
In my 2nd half of engineering physics (electricity stuff) the TA had the cojones to say (to me) "I didn't know they let women in engineering!" The jaws of myself, my husband, and our lab partner all dropped hard. I would constantly argue the purpose of application vs. theory to him in a lab setting (90% of the people in the course were engineering and not physics majors anyway), and he would end up saying "no!" and ignoring everything else I had to say. Not many other girls in there, either.
Many of the women in my engineering courses don't seem to be the geeky type, and/or most hide it for social purposes... like they assume people won't like them if they let their enjoyment of what they're doing come through, or talk about it at any other time than during classes. I assume it's the same with girls in high school... and is part of the reason they just never get into it.
I love to talk about geeky stuff... whether it be work, code, energy transfer, or what cool gadget we'll be buying next. I wish there were more geeky girls out there I could chat with, though. Most of the geek-ish girls I know are either pseduo-geeks (just can't chat with someone who doesn't know what they're talkin about) or the social types who won't talk to you about anything like that for fear of their ego (or something).
I guess my parents made an effort to encourage that I pursue whatever I wanted rather than what other people thought... though it stung a tad when I was made fun of or criticised, I was always encouraged 10 times as much.
-nicole
Doh! Here's a great link from Yahoo News: Time Names Einstein Person of the Century.
Yahoo's story was provided by Reuters... and only a good hour or 2 ago.
Are there any more reliable sources to confirm Einstein as the person of the century? (I noticed the Drudge Report said it would be "revealed" on Sunday).
I see over at the Time 100 he's the "featured profile", but that doesn't confirm anything.
The Church of All Worlds, an *idea* Heinlein invented, is not a *religion* Heinlein invented.
If you notice, Heinlein writes a lot about Paganism in his books. Characters that are Wiccan, witches, or any other brand of Paganism are found, and there is not conflict surrounding them (as in Heinlein was very comfortable with this idea, not seeing a major social conflict).
CAW is a group founded on Pagan ground. Heinlein did come up with the idea, yes, but he did not "invent" Paganism; if he did he must have been several thousand years old when he wrote his first book.
The Church of All Worlds may sound a little fluffy bunnyish and some members (leaders?) sound as if they believe they "invented" Paganism/polyamoury/etc, but it is not a religion. If you feel that the crux of their belief system, Paganism (CAW is merely an organisation comprised of Pagan people), is delusional, that is a topic for another discussion.
-nicole
Just like going out to the bars, being social at parties, or being social at work, being "social" online isn't going to work for everyone.
I met my husband on a BBS in seattle before we went out to college... "hey, I'm going to school out there", "cool, me too". So we chatted online, found common interests, met IRL before we went off to school, and saw each other a lot while we were in school.
We're still in school, and two years after meeting we married. Worked for me! But that doesn't mean it'll work for someone else...
That was on a BBS (duh I already said that), which is a little different than the "big bad internet" is now. It was local to my area (well, as local as "Seattle" can get), it took a certain style of person to seek out and hang out on a BBS (after the 'internet' had already developed), thus narrowing down the potential "field" of people-i-wouldn't-go-near-if-i-was-paid. People knew each other on the BBS, which you can't really say for IRC unless you scope it down to a single channel (or genre of channels).
I would say we shouldn't narrow ourselves to any field. Just because you know people who hit it off on IRC doesn't mean you will, and you shouldn't necessarily *try*. Be social in any place and you are bound to meet people, eventually someone you hit it off with well.
Going out and being "social" in a bar or at parties isn't for everyone. Some people meet their SO's at work (or in work-related places) without going out of their way to be excessively social. If you realise that your "potential" mate could be anywhere in the world, internet or otherwise, you're bound to find someone. Being social is being social whether it's on the 'net, in a bar, or at work.
Just be careful on the 'net before you go out and meet someone IRL. All (except one) of the internet folks I've met IRL have come from BBS', though I'm sure that will change, and a BBS is quite different from what the 'net has become. If you get a bad feeling about someone on the 'net, listen to it, just like in 'real life'.
-nicole
from the article:
;o)
The companies weren't there to throw violators
in the slammer but would have exchanged genuine software for illegal copies. Then the illegal programs would serve as evidence to hunt down the real perpetrators -- the people who actually copied and sold the software.
maybe that's the problem... people *know* they are pirating software
how would they really "hunt down" the perpetrators? traced registration numbers to the original person that registered the program??
NAAAD!
*laughs*
change that to INSECURE publicly-accessible computer...
from amazon.com's info on 1-click
However, as an added safety measure, if you are using a public computer terminal or a shared computer, you should not leave your 1-Click and Gift-Click ordering turned on when you are not
using the computer.
If you are stupid, you will leave your information turned on on the insecure publicly-accessible computer.
You have to *turn it on* for the 1-click stuff to work... it's not just *there* as soon as you show up.
barnes and noble uses the MS Passport stuff...
MUCH better than amazon.com!
sheesh... you'd think people would find something more important to protest about... if it's just "another stoopid patent", why even bother? just roll your eyes and move on...
you don't HAVE to use the 1-click system... the good ol' standard shopping cart is still there...
;o)
also you can just give amazon your last four digits and a number to call to get the rest if you feel more "secure" over the phone
it seems silly for a patent... i doubt it will hold any water (as someone else mentioned), however amazon appears to be making sure they have a hold on their "technology"
maybe there is more to it... the exact methods for keeping the numbers and so on...
the one-click system doesn't make a separate transaction out of every item... it "remembers" your information so all you do is choose sets of information (instead of typing them over and over)... so you have "one click" shopping
this has been on amazon for a few months now...
try this url
it *should* show you more information about 1-click.
excerpt:
Your 1-Click settings include your shipping address, shipping method, and payment information. They are created when you use a credit card to make an order with Amazon.com that is not a gift or an out-of-print title.
and...
1-Click ordering uses the same Netscape Secure Commerce Server as Shopping Cart ordering. All transactions made at Amazon.com on our secure server are covered by our security guarantee.
i don't think this is exactly the same as the passport system.. but i haven't *used* the passport system (and don't plan on it) so i can't be 100% sure
-nicole
I have an aunt that is mentally retarded (Down's Syndrome). She is in her thirties IIRC, though has about the age-based "intelligence" of my six year old brother.
When she was young, she climbed. She ran. She was a kid and a half! But by your standards, she just wasn't good enough and should have been cut off her right to live just as soon as they found out she has Down's Syndrome.
My immediate family spent a LOT of time with her as I was growing up... meaning *I* spent a lot of time with her (I am the oldest of my siblings). Whenever my grandparents wanted time to "themselves" or something of the like, they would drop my aunt off at our house and we would "watch" her.
Yes, she is "troublesome". So is my six year old brother. So is my 17 year old brother. So am I. She does not "understand" things as easily as you or I do, it is harder for her to draw involved conclusions. Did we treat her as if she was stupid, or "trash" or like we'd been better off if she hadn't existed? Not in a million years!!
It is all in how you look at things. If you look at her as a human being capable of thought, love, and everything you and I are capable of, she becomes real. She becomes a window into ourselves... into who we are on a lower level. Who we wish we could show... she is uninhibited. She shows love on a whim... when you talk to her, she ends with "I love you" even though it doesn't seem quite right. She shows pleasure with things that make her happy and displeasure with things she knows she doesn't like.
She has less self control than you or I (just like my little brother), and has to be told to "turn off the water before it gets too deep" or "don't eat too much chocolate, it will make you feel sick". Sometimes *I* need to be reminded of what not to do... sometimes *I* need to be told.
Mentally retarded people are capable people. They may be "slow" by your standards... they might not be able to play quick coordination-oriented games. They may not be able to operate cash registers as quickly as you... but that's not their function.
I love that aunt more than any other I have... why? Because she is real. She is honest. And heck, she likes science fiction more than anyone I know!
Now, she is in a "home" for people "like her" with a very caring person that takes care of these women. They are people.
If you look at it as a "defect", they become easier to count and harder to look at. If you look at it as a window, as WHO THEY ARE, they become people.
If I have a mentally retarded child, I will do my best to make them feel like they are the most wonderful person on earth. If I have a "normal" child, I will do EXACTLY the same.
You have to WANT to make it work for things to work in ANY family, in ANY relationship. Mentally retarded people aren't any different in that respect.
Maybe your parents would have thought your hair colour was a "defect"... would you be so quick to say "defective" children weren't deserving of life then?
Until you are IN a family with a mentally retarded person, I do not believe you are fit to judge. I am not a "weak-minded Christian", and I would never dream of putting an end to the life of such a wonderful person.
She can think, she can dream, and she can *be*. She, however, cannot express it but through her eyes which are a direct window to her heart. Her speech is scattered, but if you want to talk to her, you can. But you have to WANT to talk to her.
I suppose you should join those people who attempt to "reconstruct" their retarded children and make them more "normal". Put them in "normal" schools and make them do "normal" work. Everyone needs to be "normal", right?
Maybe you should look at yourself before you are quick to judge about these "weak minded" people. Isn't destroying a "defective" child weak minded? Isn't that the easy way out?