Generally, the guys in these threads are pretty positive on me.
Now, I've been accused of being a karma whore before, and I'm not going to say that doesn't bother me.
But I don't get the sense that Slashdot, or tech in general is any more miserable for women than anywhere else is.
People are dicks to each other sure, and they'll find ways of finding your soft spot. If your soft spot is that you get touchy when anyone insists you're inferior because you're a woman, congratulations, that's where the dicks are going to keep hitting you.
Calling me a "bitch" and calling you an "asshole" isn't worse for me because I'm a woman. Nor is it misogyny (even though the insult was gendered). It was directed at me and only me. And I have no problem with that. You have every right to feel the way about me that you do, as does everyone else on Slashdot.
However, to say that the majority of the Slashdot population has yet to prove to me that it hates women, and I dare you to prove me wrong.
The funny thing is, a lot of people in this thread do the whole "assertions" thing and lack evidence.
There's a glass ceiling...except for people like Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton. There's a brogrammer culture...except nobody's hauled out any proof that this is a thing. There's evidence that maybe men and women have different preferences in careers...except where there isn't. There's an overwhelming amount of sexism that takes place in workplaces...except in places that are pretty helpful and facilitate careers for women (and if you think there isn't, it's because you didn't ask your HR department).
Can we all just agree that there isn't really a homogeneity in the world where things are all the same in all places?
Damn it, I get misty every time I think about that guy dying.
When he died, he showed up so much on my Facebook feed, not from news reports, but because of how many things I follow that he ended up doing events with (like the 501st Legion).
Indeed. And on top of that, it gives people who aren't professionals in the field the idea that "anyone" can develop for the IoT, which results in any combination of the following:
1. Increased sales of devices that are packaged with spiffy IoT labels for anyone willing to jump on board the trend 2. Non-professional evangelists of IoT devices billing themselves as "rock stars" because, hey, open source is the key to the future (yes, I've had a non-professional tell me this), and if you "know" IoT, you've got an enhanced quality that will qualify you as a hacker. 3. Increased Government nose-sticking-in-your-damn-business because if everyone is using it, and it plays into BYOD culture, it means more regulation, more "accreditation", more making sure that you can be kept track of with your shiny new toys.
I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world to have come up with the idea of putting a Dollar Store in an airport. Since I've never owned or operated a retail outlet of any kind, though, I can imagine there's some sort of prohibition to the idea that I haven't thought of yet. But by and large, the reason we don't see this is it would probably piss in someone's corn flakes that someone, in some airport somewhere, would get something for cheap.
And on your second point: If anyone with $40 to burn was completely neutral, it wouldn't change anything.
However, if you're someone with a chip on your shoulder and friends with deep pockets that are willing to shell out money for a Kickstarter campaign or donate money to a cause they believe in, then it's perfectly reasonable to assess that you can convince someone to spend $40 for the right to vote on a cause they believed in.
I don't have a citation about ideologues. But, and I want to stress this as much as I can: that is precisely the point.
We hear in certain circles (think GamerGate and Atheism+, and even the current presidential campaign with Hillary Clinton*) that there's not "enough" diversity, and diversity must be fought for. But when someone says there isn't, they don't provide any information on what that means, how that metric is met, and what will happen when that metric is finally met (i.e., do we roll back the initiatives that are in place to help that diversity quota be met?).
And yet, we hear that every attack on any woman anywhere is an attack on all women. Because to see one woman attacked is to have all women attacked**.
Well, who's launching those attacks? People who've "made it" as part of the community? People who have been there for 20 years and have well-earned and well-deserved reputations? Or are they relatively new to the community? Have they produced anything of value that is well-sourced, well-researched or well-developed?
Seems to me, it's the latter group: people without established reputations running and crying to the press when things don't go their way. Because if those people weren't ideologues, they'd understand that maybe they had to do a little more work before crying "foul" on their failures.
*though, strangely, we don't hear cries of misogyny when we discuss Carly Fiorina. Funny, that.
**I can cite my fucking comment history to show how pervasive that attitude is. I was once told by an AC "tits of gtfo" and at least two posters replied how Slashdot isn't a "safe space" for women before I had the chance to stand up for myself. Which, bullshit. I grew up in the ghetto. If the Internet isn't a "safe space" it's because you don't know what real danger is.
No kidding. I like the Dresden Files (well, the last three or so I've found to be dragging out the story so much; the whole series went downhill after "Dead Beat" really, because, how do you top that?), but I can't imagine that a Dresden Files novel is the best sci fi/fantasy novel of the past year.
The conventional wisdom about SJWs is that they're often middle-class to upper-class white people. That's not always the case, but both sides create strawmen so, I'd continue with my reductio ad absurdum here.
So, if the SJWs make more money/have greater media connections, they can influence anyone with $40 to burn to vote on their slate because it supports the kind of media they want to see propped up by awards as if to say "see, our side is the right one, and winning the award proves it. Ha ha, we're popular AND prestigious!"
And if you happen to believe that this particular theory is patently absurd (again, not that I'm saying that's what happened here), I direct you to the last Oscars awards ceremony, in which there was outrage that "Selma" wasn't nominated for "Best Picture" or "Best Director" (a film about Martin Luther King, and directed by a black woman), because the awarding simply wasn't "diverse enough".
Slashdot Mirror
Where is this misogyny I keep hearing about?
Generally, the guys in these threads are pretty positive on me.
Now, I've been accused of being a karma whore before, and I'm not going to say that doesn't bother me.
But I don't get the sense that Slashdot, or tech in general is any more miserable for women than anywhere else is.
People are dicks to each other sure, and they'll find ways of finding your soft spot. If your soft spot is that you get touchy when anyone insists you're inferior because you're a woman, congratulations, that's where the dicks are going to keep hitting you.
Calling me a "bitch" and calling you an "asshole" isn't worse for me because I'm a woman. Nor is it misogyny (even though the insult was gendered). It was directed at me and only me. And I have no problem with that. You have every right to feel the way about me that you do, as does everyone else on Slashdot.
However, to say that the majority of the Slashdot population has yet to prove to me that it hates women, and I dare you to prove me wrong.
The funny thing is, a lot of people in this thread do the whole "assertions" thing and lack evidence.
There's a glass ceiling...except for people like Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton.
There's a brogrammer culture...except nobody's hauled out any proof that this is a thing.
There's evidence that maybe men and women have different preferences in careers...except where there isn't.
There's an overwhelming amount of sexism that takes place in workplaces...except in places that are pretty helpful and facilitate careers for women (and if you think there isn't, it's because you didn't ask your HR department).
Can we all just agree that there isn't really a homogeneity in the world where things are all the same in all places?
Ah, Sheryl Sandberg.
Was so squashed by the word "bossy", she cried all the way up to her high-ranking position in a top tech company.
Wouldn't you prefer pics from the aforementioned goat?
Apparently, it must have been a close enough race that my victory is in doubt.
I don't think you're replying to me, but I will have you know that my tits were voted the sweetest at the New York State Fair in Twenty-Aught-Three.
To casually pass around a title that some of us have earned, damn it, why that's an insult, you contemptible cur!
And if that was directed at me, apologies in order, and thank you for addressing me by my proper title.
Or that it's a natural effect of programming becoming somewhat less of an end unto itself, but as a utility for another career.
Uh, whoops.
The woman giveth, and Slashdot taketh away.
Oh, get over yourself. I'm female and I gave him a mod point for that.
I haven't made use of my fainting couch in years, by the way.
-LaurenC
Nobody's making you buy one. You can ignore it if it doesn't meet your needs.
If they're going to give you a deal for unlimited data if you sign up for a multi-year Triple Play contract.
And then have you re-negotiate for a "promotion" every six months or so. That re-negotiation bullshit is why I cut the cord in the first place.
...this has to be it?
Damn it, I get misty every time I think about that guy dying.
When he died, he showed up so much on my Facebook feed, not from news reports, but because of how many things I follow that he ended up doing events with (like the 501st Legion).
Solid guy. Went too soon.
This counts a Flamebait?
But...haven't you always wanted a monkey?
Indeed. And on top of that, it gives people who aren't professionals in the field the idea that "anyone" can develop for the IoT, which results in any combination of the following:
1. Increased sales of devices that are packaged with spiffy IoT labels for anyone willing to jump on board the trend
2. Non-professional evangelists of IoT devices billing themselves as "rock stars" because, hey, open source is the key to the future (yes, I've had a non-professional tell me this), and if you "know" IoT, you've got an enhanced quality that will qualify you as a hacker.
3. Increased Government nose-sticking-in-your-damn-business because if everyone is using it, and it plays into BYOD culture, it means more regulation, more "accreditation", more making sure that you can be kept track of with your shiny new toys.
Oh, and more "distractions" that cops can ding you on when they pull you over.
They'll only kill you, a little.
Ha. If I want to think of work in my off-hours, I'll just re-watch "Brazil".
I figured something like that had to be the reason.
...is slow and expensive?
I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world to have come up with the idea of putting a Dollar Store in an airport. Since I've never owned or operated a retail outlet of any kind, though, I can imagine there's some sort of prohibition to the idea that I haven't thought of yet. But by and large, the reason we don't see this is it would probably piss in someone's corn flakes that someone, in some airport somewhere, would get something for cheap.
Came in to say this. If it's that big, get a laptop, or a TV.
And on your second point: If anyone with $40 to burn was completely neutral, it wouldn't change anything.
However, if you're someone with a chip on your shoulder and friends with deep pockets that are willing to shell out money for a Kickstarter campaign or donate money to a cause they believe in, then it's perfectly reasonable to assess that you can convince someone to spend $40 for the right to vote on a cause they believed in.
I don't have a citation about ideologues. But, and I want to stress this as much as I can: that is precisely the point.
We hear in certain circles (think GamerGate and Atheism+, and even the current presidential campaign with Hillary Clinton*) that there's not "enough" diversity, and diversity must be fought for. But when someone says there isn't, they don't provide any information on what that means, how that metric is met, and what will happen when that metric is finally met (i.e., do we roll back the initiatives that are in place to help that diversity quota be met?).
And yet, we hear that every attack on any woman anywhere is an attack on all women. Because to see one woman attacked is to have all women attacked**.
Well, who's launching those attacks? People who've "made it" as part of the community? People who have been there for 20 years and have well-earned and well-deserved reputations? Or are they relatively new to the community? Have they produced anything of value that is well-sourced, well-researched or well-developed?
Seems to me, it's the latter group: people without established reputations running and crying to the press when things don't go their way. Because if those people weren't ideologues, they'd understand that maybe they had to do a little more work before crying "foul" on their failures.
*though, strangely, we don't hear cries of misogyny when we discuss Carly Fiorina. Funny, that.
**I can cite my fucking comment history to show how pervasive that attitude is. I was once told by an AC "tits of gtfo" and at least two posters replied how Slashdot isn't a "safe space" for women before I had the chance to stand up for myself. Which, bullshit. I grew up in the ghetto. If the Internet isn't a "safe space" it's because you don't know what real danger is.
No kidding. I like the Dresden Files (well, the last three or so I've found to be dragging out the story so much; the whole series went downhill after "Dead Beat" really, because, how do you top that?), but I can't imagine that a Dresden Files novel is the best sci fi/fantasy novel of the past year.
Tinfoil hat theory?
The conventional wisdom about SJWs is that they're often middle-class to upper-class white people. That's not always the case, but both sides create strawmen so, I'd continue with my reductio ad absurdum here.
So, if the SJWs make more money/have greater media connections, they can influence anyone with $40 to burn to vote on their slate because it supports the kind of media they want to see propped up by awards as if to say "see, our side is the right one, and winning the award proves it. Ha ha, we're popular AND prestigious!"
And if you happen to believe that this particular theory is patently absurd (again, not that I'm saying that's what happened here), I direct you to the last Oscars awards ceremony, in which there was outrage that "Selma" wasn't nominated for "Best Picture" or "Best Director" (a film about Martin Luther King, and directed by a black woman), because the awarding simply wasn't "diverse enough".