Did I? My only claims were that the iPhone was not as useful as its competitors, as evidenced by its lack of basic features, and that it did not outsell BB during the period you claimed. Both of these claims are true. You countered with obviously incorrect and irrelevant nonsense, which I corrected.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, but reality is reality.
Pocket isn't a Mozilla project. FireFoxOS is important for a litany of reasons you've already heard countless times. IoT is a natural evolution of FXOS which is why it's such a shame to see FXOS for smartphones being moved to a community project.
As for dicking with the UI, that's the most foolish complaint I've ever heard. The move to Australis brought with it far more customization options than the browser ever had before, all while a few vocal Slashdot users cried that they wanted their customization back. As for Mozilla " constantly dicking with the UI", that's just ridiculous. There have been no significant changes since Australis. If it really bugs you, just install the Classic Theme Restorer add-on. Though I don't know why you'd want the old UI everyone complained about before complaining about Australis. As to your complaint about multiprocess support, e10s has been moving along just fine. I have it enabled now.
As for regular users caring about e10s and the UI, well, that's just pure delusion. An overwhelming majority of users won't even notice the minor UI tweeks since Australis, and have little hope of understanding what multiprocess support even means. Though I wonder how Chrome would be doing if it didn't come bundled with a host of popular apps while also setting itself as the default browser. The UI is very similar, after all, so if the UI were a serious problem, you'd think Chrome wouldn't have gained much share on that basis alone. It's not like it's the winner on performance these days; its primary advantage is long gone. Or are you suggesting most users really, really, want multiprocess support so badly that they'll overlook the UI, poor performance, and privacy issues?
Mozilla is very important to the web. Rather than bashing them needlessly in some weird attempt to hasten their demise, how about you find some real (as opposed to imagined) criticisms or, better yet, contribute yourself. Do you really want to let the future of the web be decided by Google and Microsoft? We had a similar war once. Everyone lost.
My problem isn't the content, I've not commented on that at all. The problem is that it's copy/paste spam no different from those long GNAA posts. I thought I made that quite clear.
Modding up these mindless copy/paste posts just encourages spammers.
BB didn't have copy/paste until the release of the 8000 series
Nonsense. It worked fine on my 7290 (c. 2005), and the 6210 (c. 2003).
which had the requisite multitouch screens that the previous models lacked.
None of the 8000 series models had any sort of touch screen. The first would have been the 9500 series (c. 2008)
The iPhone 1 had a touchscreen in mid 2007. Six million units sold in thirteen months, which counted for nearly HALF the global smartphone market at the time
In 4Q 2007, Apple had captured a whopping 7% of the global smartphone market, and a healthy 25% of the U.S. market (well below RIM's 35%). Though by 1Q 2008, Apple had declined to 19%, while RIM had recaptured nearly 9%, holding 44% of the U.S. market. Analysts at the time attributed Apple's loss to RIM's gain. Looking at more recent figures, globally, Apple's share has declined from around 17% to 14% from 2Q 2012 to 2Q 2015. At no time has Apple held anything close to 50% of the market either in the U.S. or globally.
It doesn't look like you're going to say anything remotely true, so let's skip ahead to the weirdest part:
and DIDN'T have multitouch (hence cut/paste) capability
That is, your inexplicable belief that multi-touch is somehow a necessary prerequisite to copy/paste. My Palm Pilot didn't have multi-touch, yet had copy/paste. So has every smartphone and PDA I've ever owned (touch screen, multi-touch, and otherwise). So has every computer I've owned that had that as a feature of the OS. Further back, that feature was present in just about every word processor, no mouse or light-pen required.
Winner: Apple. By a country mile.
So it's was the productivity winner in your mind even though it was decidedly less useful than the competition, lacking basic features like copy/paste, task switching, and countless others the competing devices had years before?
See, that was the entire point. Whatever the iPhone was, and it was many things, it certainly wasn't a step forward in productivity. I mentioned two features (only one of which seemed to interest you at all) though there were many basic features it lacked. It was phenomenally successful (though dramatically less so that you seem to believe), but it was not successful because it made its users more productive.
The iPhone was many things, but useful it was, most assuredly, not. The lack of basic features like task switching and copy/paste put it well behind the competition on that front. It's why BBs outsold iPhone and Android handsets for years after you inexplicably believe they "bombed".
They're still leagues ahead of iOS and Android when it comes to management, privacy, security, and usability.
I still don't see why 'which' and 'witch' are used so often as an example of homophones. They sound similar, sure, but not identical like 'their', 'they're' and 'there'.
Then, might i suggest you argue with someone who actually holds the position you're arguing against?
You need to find out how to express yourself better.
Given what I've written, I can't possible imagine how you could continue to misinterpret my statements. Particularly after I've explicitly denied the interpretation you expressed. I asked you several questions intended to both clarify your position, and to clarify my own. Why don't you try to answer them?
You might also think that, when people all over the place are disagreeing with you, and you're trying to pull the moral high ground, you may well be wrong.
A few people in a thread where kiddie porn and real-life abusive behaviors have been defended isn't going to get me to reconsider any ethical positions I might hold, nor any you imagine that I hold.
As for people disagreeing with my position, I can't be so sure. You don't seem to disagree with anything I've said -- only with what you've imagined I must mean, despite my explicit denial.
You don't seem able (perhaps willing) to understand or acknowledge the issue at all. The problem I've described is not the one you've been addressing. I won't repeat myself further, though I wonder why you're this resistant? Why do you so desperately want the issue to be something other than the one I've explained over and over again?
This is just dishonest:
You have made by far the most complaints in these comments.
Everyone I know on disability is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them. This is wrong.
They're disabled. That means they're limited in some physical or mental way that prevents them from performing tasks a person without said disability can perform.
Further, not all (or even most) disabled people do nothing. I suspect that the majority want to contribute. It's just human nature. Some disabled people can do certain kinds of work, but many cannot due to circumstances arising from their disability. (Transportation being a major issue.) I know one kid, very bright, who suffers from a pretty bad degenerative physical disability. Even writing and typing are tedious and difficult for him, due to the nature of his disorder. Unfortunately, the assistance he'd need to be successful academically (and he's quite capable) are out of his reach, not being born to a wealthy family, or in a country that properly cares for its citizens. Still, he does what he can to improve himself, learning what he can on his own, even though his efforts are unlikely to affect anyone other than himself. We are not providing him with an opportunity to succeed, you say that he "is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them."
I'd also question the belief that it's wrong for a society to help those unable to help themselves. No one stands on their own. There are no true individualists. We are all unable to help ourselves, and we all benefit from the contributions of others. What makes you believe that you're entitled to those benefits while others are not? Because you're able to work? What makes your work more valuable that the work of others? Do you measure it by salary? Are you certain that those who contribute the most to society through their work are the same ones who benefit the most monetarily? If not, why are you so certain that your contributions entitle you more than others?
I'm not against helping people, however money for nothing is a bad idea.
I think it's pretty clear that you are against helping people. The general claim you make that social welfare is a "bad idea" seems to cement that.
Why do you think most people would do nothing? The motivation to improve their lot in life aside, I can't imagine most people are willing to just stay idle. I can think of few people who would. From pursuing personal projects, to volunteering for causes they think are important, just about everyone I know has something that would productively occupy their time.
Most people, you'll find, want to feel useful. Most people take pride in the work that they do.
A carpenter I know who volunteers >40 hours a week at a social club, of which I'm a member, often proudly shows-off pictures of the work he's done during the week. At that same club, a retired woman volunteers so often she's regularly scheduled for shifts like our regular employees. She loves the work the club does for the local community and wants to contribute in some meaningful way. So much so that she essentially works for free full-time. She's been offered a paycheck countless times and continues to refuse it. She doesn't think that she'd be helping the club if she took a wage.
That's just two people, but I can easily go on. You mentioned farming and grave digging. I don't know anyone in the latter category, but I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find people willing to maintain a cemetery. (There is at least one around here that is all volunteer.) As for farming, I do know a fellow who left an otherwise excellent career to return to farming, despite a significant cut in pay. He grew up on a farm, and finds a lot of fulfillment in that sort of work.
Fulfillment is the key here, I think. If you hate working and would rather be idle than do something productive, you simply aren't finding any value in the work you do. You're working for a paycheck, trading your life for money. That's not what most people want. Even among those with few options, they try to take pride in the work that they do. Some of them will even brag about how they've mastered each of the sections/tasks/machines and can work at any station. They seek more than a wage, but a sense of satisfaction.
If that's been denied to you, though circumstance or poor choices, I'm sorry. No one in this modern age should be working just to survive or working in some absurd quest to accumulate wealth. I'd recommend that you find work that you enjoy, or that at least that offers you something more than a check at the end of the week. Perhaps, then, you'd understand why someone would work voluntarily.
Why do you think that's the complaint? [...] And here's where I think you go really wrong. I'm not all that good a telepath
It's not telepathy. Those are the complaints voiced above. You'll even find the "amateur social engineering" bit I quoted in this thread.
If Cortana doesn't behave right unless I treat it as I would a female colleague, that's a problem with Cortana
This is where we differ. The program is designed to simulate a personal assistant. Why would it act in any way contrary to that purpose? Why would you want it to act any other way? If I go to the store and buy a video game, should I complain that it makes a lousy word processor because of some belief I have that software should do what I want, regardless of its intended purpose? I don't understand this complaint.
It is a problem with serious consequences. A famous conversation, loosely translated: "Oh, yeah, great idea. Just kill all the Jews and Gypsies. It's no big deal, just round 'em up and bump 'em off. Oh, since we've got them all collected, why not make them build our weapons and planes too? That'll end well."
Sadly, the fuhrer was just looking for some propaganda ideas to help get those groups on board...
Your whole complaint seems to be that doing certain things with software will induce me to do similar things with women in real life, and I see no evidence of that.
I've very carefully avoided that. The problem here is that users seem to want Cortana to cater to their abuse fantasy. It's contrary to the purpose of the program, which not a fetish chat-bot, so there is a question as to why they expect a different behavior than the one Microsoft has provided. I contend that it's because they don't believe their abuse fantasy is just that, a fantasy. They believe that their abusive behavior, and the submissive response they expect, are or should be normal and socially acceptable. They believe that Microsoft is engaging in some sort of "social engineering" to make behaviors they believe are normal, unacceptable.
Obviously, those sorts of behaviors are not normal or socially acceptable. That the program, to their minds, highlights this, they feel threatened. They want their abusive behaviors and the submissive responses from the target of their abuse, to be considered normal and socially acceptable. They seem to think that Microsoft is under some sort of obligation to aid them in their efforts.
Personally, I expect software I use to do what I want, and I expect people to act according to their personalities.
So how would you have advised Microsoft as to Cortana's responses to abusive or sexually charged inputs? Should they have a setting to adjust the programs output to match every possible fantasy? Should they have catered to your specific preferences? Or should they have make the program respond like a professional personal assistant, like they did, as the program is intended to act like a personal assistant? What seems most reasonable to you? Regarding the decision they ultimately made, why to you think they made the wrong decision?
This is Slashdot, home of the perpetually dissatisfied user. If Microsoft, Mozilla, Sony, or whoever simultaneously ended world hunger, cured cancer, and gave you shiny red balloon, they'd bitch about the color.
Some people are complaining that Cortana does not act subservient, despite being a machine.
The problem you're having is with the word 'subservient'. The program functions as intended in that the responses simulate a professional personal assistant. (This should not be in dispute.) The complaint those users have is that it doesn't act like they think a woman should act when they subject it to behavior that would be abusive had they done the same to a human.
And what's this about normalizing behavior?
Again, the program is functioning exactly as any normal person would expect. Those other people think the program should respond differently to certain kinds of inputs, because they believe that their abuse fantasy should be considered normal. That is, they want to normalize abusive behaviors, to make them socially acceptable. Put simply, the program highlights how out-of-step their beliefs about how a person should react when abused is with the rest of society, and they want that to change. They would prefer that the program act like a fetish chat-bot because it would validate their twisted beliefs about how women should react when abused.
As I've painfully pointed out countless times, this has nothing at all to do with treating machines badly. Molest your toaster all you want. No one cares about your lewd conduct towards appliances.
Who said I don't think women should be treated as equals?
You did, when you decided that treating women like people, per my post, was feminism which you then rejected entirely. Now you contradict yourself:
That's not what feminism is about though. Feminism is not about treating women as equals, it's about treating women as opressed victims that require special treatment.
Pure delusion aside, you now reject the idea that treating women like people is a feminist principle. Which is it?
Perhaps you should go dig around whatever right-wing site gave you such a foolish idea to better clarify the position you think you're supposed to promote.
You're missing th point. The objection people have here is that the default behavior of the application does not indulge them in their abuse fantasies. That is, they believe that the program should respond in such a way as to cater to that fantasy. It is counter to the function of the program, so the implication is that they believe their perversion should be considered normal. That is, they want to normalize that kind of abusive behavior.
Like I told the other guy, abuse technology all you want. Molest your toaster, fondle the coffee pot, whatever gets you going. That's not important. Normalizing abusive behaviors, however, is dangerous.. Abusive behavior should not be considered normal or socially acceptable.
How do I respond to this? If treating women like people, and not acting like a socially underdeveloped adolecent at work are anathema to you how can I possibly respond? If you think feminism is awful because you don't think that women should be treated like equals, and that adults should act like adults, what could I possibly offer in response?
When you think that normal, pro-social, behavior is tyranny and must be resisted at all costs, what can I offer you? How can I convince you that pro-social behavior benefits everyone, yourself included?
The truth is, I can't. You may have believed that some time ago, but your inexplicable anti-feminist ideology has stripped what was left of your (presumably limited) understanding of normal social behavior. I can recommend some adult social services if you're having trouble functioning at work or in public places.
It does not assume a, b, c, or d. Not a, as many is not the same as most. Not b, for obvious reasons. Not c as other industries is not all industries, and not d, for the same reasons as c.
There is, obviously, a problem in the software industry. That doesn't mean that other industries or individual work-places don't share those same problems. Denying the problem won't make it go away. Neither will it go away by denying that action needs to be taken because the problem also exists outside the software industry.
So you think Microsoft should have taken the time to make sure that Cortana caters to any users particular fetish? Because users here are upset that this program isn't a fetish chat-bot. My word processor isn't a waffle iron, should I be upset?
Of course not. See, they're actually upset that their abuse fantasies aren't socially acceptable.
asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.
This is a problem for you? How would you rather Microsoft have handled that input? (Let me guess: by indulging you in your power fantasy.) How would a real personal assistant respond to that? Would they consider that a form of abuse? Here in the real world, sexual harassment is abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I? My only claims were that the iPhone was not as useful as its competitors, as evidenced by its lack of basic features, and that it did not outsell BB during the period you claimed. Both of these claims are true. You countered with obviously incorrect and irrelevant nonsense, which I corrected.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, but reality is reality.
Pocket isn't a Mozilla project. FireFoxOS is important for a litany of reasons you've already heard countless times. IoT is a natural evolution of FXOS which is why it's such a shame to see FXOS for smartphones being moved to a community project.
As for dicking with the UI, that's the most foolish complaint I've ever heard. The move to Australis brought with it far more customization options than the browser ever had before, all while a few vocal Slashdot users cried that they wanted their customization back. As for Mozilla " constantly dicking with the UI", that's just ridiculous. There have been no significant changes since Australis. If it really bugs you, just install the Classic Theme Restorer add-on. Though I don't know why you'd want the old UI everyone complained about before complaining about Australis. As to your complaint about multiprocess support, e10s has been moving along just fine. I have it enabled now.
As for regular users caring about e10s and the UI, well, that's just pure delusion. An overwhelming majority of users won't even notice the minor UI tweeks since Australis, and have little hope of understanding what multiprocess support even means. Though I wonder how Chrome would be doing if it didn't come bundled with a host of popular apps while also setting itself as the default browser. The UI is very similar, after all, so if the UI were a serious problem, you'd think Chrome wouldn't have gained much share on that basis alone. It's not like it's the winner on performance these days; its primary advantage is long gone. Or are you suggesting most users really, really, want multiprocess support so badly that they'll overlook the UI, poor performance, and privacy issues?
Mozilla is very important to the web. Rather than bashing them needlessly in some weird attempt to hasten their demise, how about you find some real (as opposed to imagined) criticisms or, better yet, contribute yourself. Do you really want to let the future of the web be decided by Google and Microsoft? We had a similar war once. Everyone lost.
My problem isn't the content, I've not commented on that at all. The problem is that it's copy/paste spam no different from those long GNAA posts. I thought I made that quite clear.
Modding up these mindless copy/paste posts just encourages spammers.
Then why all this other non-browser shit?
Because it's important.
Who keeps modding up this tired old copy/paste rant?
What's next? APK at +5? The GNAA guy?
BB didn't have copy/paste until the release of the 8000 series
Nonsense. It worked fine on my 7290 (c. 2005), and the 6210 (c. 2003).
which had the requisite multitouch screens that the previous models lacked.
None of the 8000 series models had any sort of touch screen. The first would have been the 9500 series (c. 2008)
The iPhone 1 had a touchscreen in mid 2007. Six million units sold in thirteen months, which counted for nearly HALF the global smartphone market at the time
In 4Q 2007, Apple had captured a whopping 7% of the global smartphone market, and a healthy 25% of the U.S. market (well below RIM's 35%). Though by 1Q 2008, Apple had declined to 19%, while RIM had recaptured nearly 9%, holding 44% of the U.S. market. Analysts at the time attributed Apple's loss to RIM's gain. Looking at more recent figures, globally, Apple's share has declined from around 17% to 14% from 2Q 2012 to 2Q 2015. At no time has Apple held anything close to 50% of the market either in the U.S. or globally.
It doesn't look like you're going to say anything remotely true, so let's skip ahead to the weirdest part:
and DIDN'T have multitouch (hence cut/paste) capability
That is, your inexplicable belief that multi-touch is somehow a necessary prerequisite to copy/paste. My Palm Pilot didn't have multi-touch, yet had copy/paste. So has every smartphone and PDA I've ever owned (touch screen, multi-touch, and otherwise). So has every computer I've owned that had that as a feature of the OS. Further back, that feature was present in just about every word processor, no mouse or light-pen required.
Winner: Apple. By a country mile.
So it's was the productivity winner in your mind even though it was decidedly less useful than the competition, lacking basic features like copy/paste, task switching, and countless others the competing devices had years before?
See, that was the entire point. Whatever the iPhone was, and it was many things, it certainly wasn't a step forward in productivity. I mentioned two features (only one of which seemed to interest you at all) though there were many basic features it lacked. It was phenomenally successful (though dramatically less so that you seem to believe), but it was not successful because it made its users more productive.
The iPhone was many things, but useful it was, most assuredly, not. The lack of basic features like task switching and copy/paste put it well behind the competition on that front. It's why BBs outsold iPhone and Android handsets for years after you inexplicably believe they "bombed".
They're still leagues ahead of iOS and Android when it comes to management, privacy, security, and usability.
I still don't see why 'which' and 'witch' are used so often as an example of homophones. They sound similar, sure, but not identical like 'their', 'they're' and 'there'.
I don't want it to be something other than that.
Then, might i suggest you argue with someone who actually holds the position you're arguing against?
You need to find out how to express yourself better.
Given what I've written, I can't possible imagine how you could continue to misinterpret my statements. Particularly after I've explicitly denied the interpretation you expressed. I asked you several questions intended to both clarify your position, and to clarify my own. Why don't you try to answer them?
You might also think that, when people all over the place are disagreeing with you, and you're trying to pull the moral high ground, you may well be wrong.
A few people in a thread where kiddie porn and real-life abusive behaviors have been defended isn't going to get me to reconsider any ethical positions I might hold, nor any you imagine that I hold.
As for people disagreeing with my position, I can't be so sure. You don't seem to disagree with anything I've said -- only with what you've imagined I must mean, despite my explicit denial.
You don't seem able (perhaps willing) to understand or acknowledge the issue at all. The problem I've described is not the one you've been addressing. I won't repeat myself further, though I wonder why you're this resistant? Why do you so desperately want the issue to be something other than the one I've explained over and over again?
This is just dishonest:
You have made by far the most complaints in these comments.
Silly nonsense.
Everyone I know on disability is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them. This is wrong.
They're disabled. That means they're limited in some physical or mental way that prevents them from performing tasks a person without said disability can perform.
Further, not all (or even most) disabled people do nothing. I suspect that the majority want to contribute. It's just human nature. Some disabled people can do certain kinds of work, but many cannot due to circumstances arising from their disability. (Transportation being a major issue.) I know one kid, very bright, who suffers from a pretty bad degenerative physical disability. Even writing and typing are tedious and difficult for him, due to the nature of his disorder. Unfortunately, the assistance he'd need to be successful academically (and he's quite capable) are out of his reach, not being born to a wealthy family, or in a country that properly cares for its citizens. Still, he does what he can to improve himself, learning what he can on his own, even though his efforts are unlikely to affect anyone other than himself. We are not providing him with an opportunity to succeed, you say that he "is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them."
I'd also question the belief that it's wrong for a society to help those unable to help themselves. No one stands on their own. There are no true individualists. We are all unable to help ourselves, and we all benefit from the contributions of others. What makes you believe that you're entitled to those benefits while others are not? Because you're able to work? What makes your work more valuable that the work of others? Do you measure it by salary? Are you certain that those who contribute the most to society through their work are the same ones who benefit the most monetarily? If not, why are you so certain that your contributions entitle you more than others?
I'm not against helping people, however money for nothing is a bad idea.
I think it's pretty clear that you are against helping people. The general claim you make that social welfare is a "bad idea" seems to cement that.
Why do you think most people would do nothing? The motivation to improve their lot in life aside, I can't imagine most people are willing to just stay idle. I can think of few people who would. From pursuing personal projects, to volunteering for causes they think are important, just about everyone I know has something that would productively occupy their time.
Most people, you'll find, want to feel useful. Most people take pride in the work that they do.
A carpenter I know who volunteers >40 hours a week at a social club, of which I'm a member, often proudly shows-off pictures of the work he's done during the week. At that same club, a retired woman volunteers so often she's regularly scheduled for shifts like our regular employees. She loves the work the club does for the local community and wants to contribute in some meaningful way. So much so that she essentially works for free full-time. She's been offered a paycheck countless times and continues to refuse it. She doesn't think that she'd be helping the club if she took a wage.
That's just two people, but I can easily go on. You mentioned farming and grave digging. I don't know anyone in the latter category, but I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find people willing to maintain a cemetery. (There is at least one around here that is all volunteer.) As for farming, I do know a fellow who left an otherwise excellent career to return to farming, despite a significant cut in pay. He grew up on a farm, and finds a lot of fulfillment in that sort of work.
Fulfillment is the key here, I think. If you hate working and would rather be idle than do something productive, you simply aren't finding any value in the work you do. You're working for a paycheck, trading your life for money. That's not what most people want. Even among those with few options, they try to take pride in the work that they do. Some of them will even brag about how they've mastered each of the sections/tasks/machines and can work at any station. They seek more than a wage, but a sense of satisfaction.
If that's been denied to you, though circumstance or poor choices, I'm sorry. No one in this modern age should be working just to survive or working in some absurd quest to accumulate wealth. I'd recommend that you find work that you enjoy, or that at least that offers you something more than a check at the end of the week. Perhaps, then, you'd understand why someone would work voluntarily.
Why do you think that's the complaint? [...] And here's where I think you go really wrong. I'm not all that good a telepath
It's not telepathy. Those are the complaints voiced above. You'll even find the "amateur social engineering" bit I quoted in this thread.
If Cortana doesn't behave right unless I treat it as I would a female colleague, that's a problem with Cortana
This is where we differ. The program is designed to simulate a personal assistant. Why would it act in any way contrary to that purpose? Why would you want it to act any other way? If I go to the store and buy a video game, should I complain that it makes a lousy word processor because of some belief I have that software should do what I want, regardless of its intended purpose? I don't understand this complaint.
It is a problem with serious consequences. A famous conversation, loosely translated: "Oh, yeah, great idea. Just kill all the Jews and Gypsies. It's no big deal, just round 'em up and bump 'em off. Oh, since we've got them all collected, why not make them build our weapons and planes too? That'll end well."
Sadly, the fuhrer was just looking for some propaganda ideas to help get those groups on board...
Your whole complaint seems to be that doing certain things with software will induce me to do similar things with women in real life, and I see no evidence of that.
I've very carefully avoided that. The problem here is that users seem to want Cortana to cater to their abuse fantasy. It's contrary to the purpose of the program, which not a fetish chat-bot, so there is a question as to why they expect a different behavior than the one Microsoft has provided. I contend that it's because they don't believe their abuse fantasy is just that, a fantasy. They believe that their abusive behavior, and the submissive response they expect, are or should be normal and socially acceptable. They believe that Microsoft is engaging in some sort of "social engineering" to make behaviors they believe are normal, unacceptable.
Obviously, those sorts of behaviors are not normal or socially acceptable. That the program, to their minds, highlights this, they feel threatened. They want their abusive behaviors and the submissive responses from the target of their abuse, to be considered normal and socially acceptable. They seem to think that Microsoft is under some sort of obligation to aid them in their efforts.
Personally, I expect software I use to do what I want, and I expect people to act according to their personalities.
So how would you have advised Microsoft as to Cortana's responses to abusive or sexually charged inputs? Should they have a setting to adjust the programs output to match every possible fantasy? Should they have catered to your specific preferences? Or should they have make the program respond like a professional personal assistant, like they did, as the program is intended to act like a personal assistant? What seems most reasonable to you? Regarding the decision they ultimately made, why to you think they made the wrong decision?
I didn't finish reading the title...
This is Slashdot, home of the perpetually dissatisfied user. If Microsoft, Mozilla, Sony, or whoever simultaneously ended world hunger, cured cancer, and gave you shiny red balloon, they'd bitch about the color.
Some people are complaining that Cortana does not act subservient, despite being a machine.
The problem you're having is with the word 'subservient'. The program functions as intended in that the responses simulate a professional personal assistant. (This should not be in dispute.) The complaint those users have is that it doesn't act like they think a woman should act when they subject it to behavior that would be abusive had they done the same to a human.
And what's this about normalizing behavior?
Again, the program is functioning exactly as any normal person would expect. Those other people think the program should respond differently to certain kinds of inputs, because they believe that their abuse fantasy should be considered normal. That is, they want to normalize abusive behaviors, to make them socially acceptable. Put simply, the program highlights how out-of-step their beliefs about how a person should react when abused is with the rest of society, and they want that to change. They would prefer that the program act like a fetish chat-bot because it would validate their twisted beliefs about how women should react when abused.
As I've painfully pointed out countless times, this has nothing at all to do with treating machines badly. Molest your toaster all you want. No one cares about your lewd conduct towards appliances.
That women should be treated as people is a central idea of feminism, but what "treated as people" actually means, is treated like victims
That's just delusional.
Who said I don't think women should be treated as equals?
You did, when you decided that treating women like people, per my post, was feminism which you then rejected entirely. Now you contradict yourself:
That's not what feminism is about though. Feminism is not about treating women as equals, it's about treating women as opressed victims that require special treatment.
Pure delusion aside, you now reject the idea that treating women like people is a feminist principle. Which is it?
Perhaps you should go dig around whatever right-wing site gave you such a foolish idea to better clarify the position you think you're supposed to promote.
You're missing th point. The objection people have here is that the default behavior of the application does not indulge them in their abuse fantasies. That is, they believe that the program should respond in such a way as to cater to that fantasy. It is counter to the function of the program, so the implication is that they believe their perversion should be considered normal. That is, they want to normalize that kind of abusive behavior.
Like I told the other guy, abuse technology all you want. Molest your toaster, fondle the coffee pot, whatever gets you going. That's not important. Normalizing abusive behaviors, however, is dangerous.. Abusive behavior should not be considered normal or socially acceptable.
What goals, precisely, did I shift?
None, obviously.
How do I respond to this? If treating women like people, and not acting like a socially underdeveloped adolecent at work are anathema to you how can I possibly respond? If you think feminism is awful because you don't think that women should be treated like equals, and that adults should act like adults, what could I possibly offer in response?
When you think that normal, pro-social, behavior is tyranny and must be resisted at all costs, what can I offer you? How can I convince you that pro-social behavior benefits everyone, yourself included?
The truth is, I can't. You may have believed that some time ago, but your inexplicable anti-feminist ideology has stripped what was left of your (presumably limited) understanding of normal social behavior. I can recommend some adult social services if you're having trouble functioning at work or in public places.
It does not assume a, b, c, or d. Not a, as many is not the same as most. Not b, for obvious reasons. Not c as other industries is not all industries, and not d, for the same reasons as c.
There is, obviously, a problem in the software industry. That doesn't mean that other industries or individual work-places don't share those same problems. Denying the problem won't make it go away. Neither will it go away by denying that action needs to be taken because the problem also exists outside the software industry.
And this is wrong how?
So you think Microsoft should have taken the time to make sure that Cortana caters to any users particular fetish? Because users here are upset that this program isn't a fetish chat-bot. My word processor isn't a waffle iron, should I be upset?
Of course not. See, they're actually upset that their abuse fantasies aren't socially acceptable.
asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.
This is a problem for you? How would you rather Microsoft have handled that input? (Let me guess: by indulging you in your power fantasy.) How would a real personal assistant respond to that? Would they consider that a form of abuse? Here in the real world, sexual harassment is abuse.