"Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, one foot in front of the other, and see how many steps it takes. My feet are each just about 1 foot long, and it works pretty reliably."
Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, taking normal strides, and see how many steps it takes. My strides are each just about 1 metre long, and it works pretty reliably.
Unfortunately, both our statements vary from person to person. Most people DON'T have feet that are about a foot long, or strides that are a metre long. You're using an arbitrary piece of your body and mapping it to a measurement. Anyone can do that in any system.
I've made a point of learning my height and mass in metric. Now that I've fully converted myself to metric, and reject imperial measurements that are sort-of common here, things are much easier. I'm 190cm tall and mass 80kg.
The thing with metric is that the small bits are easier to remember. The only imperial units that I know are pounds, yards, feet and inches. I can convert inches to feet, feet to yards, and that's about it. I don't understand ounces (fluid or mass, and that's an extra confusion right there; how do you tell someone that you want 15 ounces of fluid by mass without being confusing?), I don't know how many yards or inches in a mile, etc.
I know what a kilogram is. Intuitively, I know that it's about 3 cans of pop, or one 1 litre pop bottle. My mass, then, is easier to figure out in those kinds of terms, 'cause I can tell people about how many of something or another I weigh. I'm almost 2 metres tall, but not quite. If you need to know my height in kilometres, I can do that for you pretty quickly. I can also give you my height in millimetres if you want that. A cubic metre? Well, that's 1000L, if we're talking about water. Since a litre of water masses 1kg, it means that a cubic metre of water masses one metric tonne. If I'm trying to figure out large masses, that's an easy reference to go back to. And I know that water freezes at 0C, boils at 100C (assuming fairly standard pressure). My car gets about 5L/100km on the highway (it really does!). I also know that when the low fuel light comes on, I have 7L left in the tank, according to the manual. That means I've got at least 100km left in the tank.
A lot of it has to do with what you were taught, but I could have gotten away with being taught a lot less and still managed to figure out this stuff fairly trivially. I just need to know about grams, metres and power-of-ten prefixes, and I'm good to go. There's a good reason that metric is the system of choice for science.
I did quote selectively, but if you read my comment carefully I said, "So the guys that did Opera did the tabbed thing first; they released the Opera browser later."
I actually preferred the older MDI interface in some ways; you could tile a couple pages together in the same window and look at them side by side. I'm just taking exception to him saying that IE did it first because they didn't. Even if you consider the NetCaptor extension the first tabbed browsing experience, Microsoft didn't do it, so it's still somewhat disingenuous for him to mention it at all.
"BookLink Technologies pioneered this interface design in its InternetWorks browser in 1994. Independently, the founders of Opera built an MDI-based browser in the same year (via a technical preview not available publicly; a public release was made in 1996). The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997."
So the guys that did Opera did the tabbed thing first; they released the Opera browser later. The public release of the tabbed browser was still done months before the IE shell modification.
I would argue that a system that allows itself to be distrusted in this fashion, a system that doesn't command the highest level of confidence of its users -- that's what's really at fault. Conspiracy theorists abound, certainly, but one of the problems is that this conspiracy doesn't seem that far fetched. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. Many (all?) of the things that are claimed in the article are verifiable. Whether they add up to a stolen election may be something else, but that people can have a moment of doubt is at the core, here.
There's no perfect solution, but surely there's a better solution than this.
I can't possibly list all the things that are wrong with all the other countries in the world. I'm well aware of China's human rights record, the fact that Putin seems to be trying to push his country back towards a total dictatorship, Brazil's continuing rape of the rainforests and our government's inability to stop oil companies from destroying the land around the oil sands as well as refusing to enact any meaningful legislation to actually clean things up and make people change how they use energy. All of these things are well known to me. I personally feel that everyone should stop picking on Israel and try to get on with their lives without a tiny little patch of land that's barely enough for the Jews to call home. To ask me to criticize everyone equally is an impossible task, and I'm not going to get started on it. I can only work on what's wrong in my own country in a meaningful fashion, and I do what I can when I can.
All of this is entirely beside the point.
This all started with this post: "It's probably even harder for indoctrinated non-Americans to understand that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly narcissistic, or remotely wealthy. At this point, in fact, the bulk of us are starting to get pretty damn sick and tired of both those SUV-driving narcissistic fuckwits that we have to contend with on the way to work every day, and judgmental foreigners that insist upon treating America (of all countries) as a monolithic culture. "
I still don't have anything in particular against America, certainly no more so than any other country. The only reason you're having this conversation with me at all is because I decided to step up and give a reason for the reason you Americans get so much flak. You don't have to accept anything that I say, but I represent a viewpoint that's
a) external to your worldview by virtue of literally being outside of the situation b) probably not far off from what most of these other 'judgemental foreigners'
Your country has problems. You'll admit that much, obviously; you've said as much yourself.
If you've read my other posts, you'll note that I also said that you're probably the most scrutinized nation on earth. The fact that I know what's going on in some of your mid-term election primaries speaks to the fact that I can get news about your country from where I'm sitting, thousands of kilometres away.
The grandparent poster wanted us 'judgemental foreigners' to back off, and I was giving some reasons for why we seem so critical. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, I'm afraid. You'll also have to concede that there are a lot of outsiders that have a dim view of your population and your administration.
Let me point out something that's particularly telling about YOUR post, while we're here anyway.
Your three points aren't the 'shortcomings of [your] enemies'. Realistically, there are a lot of people allied with you that think these things or harbour these feelings. You really need to chuck this 'you're either with us or against us' shtick. It's not endearing, and it's a false assertion. Canada didn't join you in Iraq. This doesn't mean that we're against you. My fellow citizens happily took in American people stranded in our airports when 9/11 happened. I'm sure we'd do it again.
Anti-Americanism isn't any more acceptable than anti-Islamism, but again I ask: what else would you have the world think of you? Only a small number of Muslims are crazy enough to blow themselves up to hurt other people, but a whole religious group is being painted with the same brush because the majority that doesn't kill people haven't spoken up loudly enough. As with most groups, the loudest and most obnoxious are the ones that you notice. For most of us in the world, your President is as loud and obnoxious as they come. Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly are all crazy loud people that you can hear all the way across the pond. You've got John Steward and Stephen Colbert trying to even out the odds, but then the nex
Trying to be popular is a losing game when the crowd is biased against you. The US has interests that occasionally conflict even with our closest allies. We have beliefs and cultures that are different and will probably stay that way. The US also is a convenient scapegoat for many disfunctional societies in the Third World. So why take the effort to be nice when you lose it each time you have a disagreement? I think everyone would be better off if they understood that everyone else has different goals and isn't going to agree on everything.
That's the World Peace problem in a nutshell. I don't think we'll live to see it.:(
I'd really like to know where you got 'USA-basher' out of my post. I went back and re-read it and confirmed that the point I was trying to get across that it doesn't matter how great your country is, you're going to get it in the pants in the perceptions game for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that basically nobody in the 5.7 billion non-US population has any love for GWB at all.
Your country gets a lot of scrutiny. There's a lot of misperception and misconception about your country, but think about the news that comes out about your country on a day to day basis. Evolution is more strongly accepted in just about every nation on Earth, including the ones that define themselves as strongly Christian. Your country, a symbol for individual human rights, struggles with Gay Rights and the PATRIOT act and pharmacists that won't give contraceptives to women because they think it's wrong.
Is it fair that all Americans get painted with the same brush? I hardly think so; no more than it's fair to associate purely negative things to any group of people. However, it's not something that America has ever tried to change, or perhaps has any particular desire to change. That's fine, good for you for having a thick skin. But if you're going to complain that you're not getting a fair shake, think about the things that are likely to be seen by the rest of the world first and work to change that image.
I'm impressed with what you've managed to read out from between the lines that I certainly didn't put there. You're defensive; I understand. It sucks when people don't like your country and there's no good reason for it. Perception's an ugly bitch.
I certainly didn't try to imply in my response to you that China and Russia are nations that stack up favourably to the US. China has obvious problems of its own, but I DO have a cultural tie to it that I won't ignore. Russia's a basketcase that I only have ties to because half my family was in that area 80 years ago.
The American era of imperialism has certainly existed for long before they got involved with Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 6 years. America's exploits in the middle east propping up dictatorships and replacing rulers to be those more favourable towards the US is well known and well documented. It just doesn't seem like it's been going on because it ended up working so very poorly.
I'll summarize for you again, and maybe you'll read what I'm putting in the text as opposed to things that I didn't explicitly write: it doesn't matter what you think of your country when dealing with stereotypes. It doesn't matter what the truth of the situation is. The world doesn't like your leader, and your outward image of a fat (30+% obese now, by population? The real problem is poverty; arguably some of these people have no choice in the matter), polluting (#1 polluter in the world, at least for now. Per capita, better than Canada, I hear), and consumptive (Americans personally carry some of the highest debt-load per capita of any nation, presumably to fund their need for stuff) may not be well deserved, but it's certainly what's reported on. You voted for a leader -- twice -- that is only currently supported by about 30% of your population. I don't think I'm saying anything that other AMERICANS don't say on a daily basis. Actually, I consume more American news (albeit left-leaning stuff like Salon, the Huffington Post, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report) on a daily basis than I do Canadian news. My views are never much more than a stone's throw away from what's being printed and produced in your own popular media. When I DO listen to Canadian news, these days it's about how yet another international court has ruled in favour of Canada in the current softwood lumber dispute that we're embroiled in, but your government refusing to acquiesce to the rulings. Now, out of desperation, we're taking a compromise deal that we shouldn't have to.
What other image could you ever expect the States to have, especially in Canada? People don't remember the good things that others do. Negatives stick much more strongly in the memory, and negatives are in the news. It's not news if your citizens are calm, conserving athletes that donate to charity, I'm afraid, even if it should be.
I'll make you a deal: you work on getting your brethren to stop jumping to conclusions based on peoples' race or religion or country of residence, and I'll do what I can to get my brethren to stop thinking of Americans in such an unkind way. We have a rather hard job, since we're up against professionals like Coulter and Limbaugh, who try to pass themselves off as 'average' Americans, 'educating' the rest of the population about how nasty we Canadians are, but it all has to start somewhere, I guess.
If you can get them into a dark alley, I'll bring the bat.:)
I don't disagree with you. Misperception is at the heart of this matter. But in the end, perception is usually what counts for the most, not truth. Are all people on welfare lazy and unmotivated? No, not at all. Yet, this is often the perception that is held, and it's hard to dissuade people of it. People see the Chinese government as overbearing, overly intrusive and cruel. From their perspective, I'm sure they think they're decisive, concerned and driven.
Most of the World's problems are a matter of this misperception. Not all Muslims are terrorists (a vanishingly small percentage of them are, actually). Not all Americans are fat, lazy and stupid (just the ones that show up on the news, unfortunately). Not all Canadians are pot-smoking hippies that live in igloos (just the lucky ones;).
I wasn't clear with my 'get rid of' remark. I meant it strictly in the voting sense. If we had time and room for a real discussion, you'd find out that the rule of law is something that I put a lot of stock in, even if the laws are stupid. In those cases, you work to change the law; you don't flaunt it. (I doggedly drive the speed limit, even though I think I'd be a safe driver at higher speeds. That's not my call to make.)
My position is likely not very much different from your fellow Americans that consider themselves 'left wing'. I'm dubious over the election results, but I don't necessarily think that the election was stolen. This is so much the worse in the case of the 2004 elections. If those really were the most accurate results possible, it means that America decided that keeping GWB in office was the best course for the country, and not enough people could be motivated to say that it wasn't. Polls indicate that your population may be wising up to it now, but it's a bit late for saying sorry.
I'm really not trying to get into a debate about the relative merits of your country and political system. I'm merely trying to point out that the World's perception of your population is poor, with GWB being among the many reasons. International geeks also get to read about your Net Neutrality Act, the PATRIOT act, and every mistake Homeland Security makes. The truth of the matter is largely irrelevant. You have an image problem.
Yes, thank you for the nice lecture. That you can type a coherent sentence and sound high-handed about this whole thing doesn't change the perception of your country by the rest of the world at all.
Frankly, I suspect your entire response to me as being ironic; nobody would describe Bush as a 'moderate conservative' -- especially not his supporters.
Amusingly, the person looking back out of the mirror at me is someone that's half-Chinese, and half-White-Russian. I briefly felt bad about the bad-mouthing of a Chinese mathematician, since I feel no small amount of pride when I hear about Chinese doing well in the world, but then I remembered that every country and race fields its share of jerks.
Face facts: nobody likes Bush. Electing him again made your country look really bad in the eyes of the world. Whether or not you think this is fair, whether or not you think that Bush really is the 'moderate conservative' that you claim him to be -- neither of those things matter. Your country has a long standing reputation for wasteful imperialism. Crying to me that it isn't fair doesn't change that.
Finally, I don't think that Canada has done any better a job fixing any sort of environmental crisis than the US. My province (Alberta) still shamelessly kowtows to the big oil companies raping the land around the oil sands, worried that raising taxes or imposing any sort of meaningful environmental restrictions will cause them to spontaneously generate and move to another massive source of oil somewhere else in the world. Stephen Harper, our current Prime Minister is from southern Alberta, and has the outward appearance of an unfeeling, yet evil, robot bent on doing meaningless fiddling in the guise of getting some work done. I have no shortage of criticism for my fellow citizens and their capacity to pick up on the worst kinds of American behaviours that they no doubt learn from sitting in front of the television far too much. Don't take my criticism of your country and my attempt to explain where all these nasty off-hand comments come from as some sort of tacit approval of every other system out there. I've read the history books and I know the good your country and your people have done. Your lecturing only feeds the stereotypes that everyone holds.
I'm going to deviate wildly from the actual conversation at hand and put in two cents real fast. (Moderators, just ignore this post. Nobody reads at +1 except you anyway, so modding me down is just a waste of points.)
People around the world believe what they do about America because from all outward appearances, very little is being done about it. When there was a question about the validity of an election in Ukraine, Ukranians came out and protested in huge numbers until something was done about it. It was the truest expression of democracy that the world has seen in a long time. Ultimately, they have the US to thank in large part for even giving them that opportunity, but when it looked like their rights were in jeopardy, they stood up and didn't waste the opportunity offered them.
In comparison, two American elections went by with a comparative whimper from those that felt the election results weren't necessarily on the up and up. For Americans to not be able to rid themselves of someone like GWB if they really wanted to is ridiculous, so the perception is that really, that's who America wanted to lead them, even if 49.9% of the population voted against him.
I'm Canadian, and I'm friends with many Americans. On an individual basis, Americans that I'm friendly with think very much like I do (for good or ill; I'm a filthy socialist hippie:), but as a population, you're overbearing, wasteful and crude. If you want people around the world to think better of you (which in and of itself would be somewhat novel -- it implies that you admit that there's a 'rest of the world';) you have to do something about it. You may not care -- that's your right -- but then you can't complain about the generalizations that are made about you.
Anyway, long story short: I'm sure you're very nice, are just as tired of the SUV driving morons that ruin your country as we are, and don't necessarily fit every American stereotype. Don't take it too personally when the rest of us complain about your compatriots. We'll try not to take it personally when you make fun of our oddly coloured money.:)
Perelman will be the one that goes down in history as the one that solved the conjecture to a satisfactory degree, no matter who else releases papers that pretend that his work was incomprehensible. That sort of argument doesn't really stand up very well, anyway; if it were easy to understand, it's likely someone would have trivially solved it earlier. The Chinese may very well have an army of extremely competent mathematicians, and two or three of them may have cleaned up Perelman's work to be a little more friendly to the mathematics community at large, but I suspect that Perelman will be the name that everyone remembers.
He's done his bit, people will remember him, and he'll get to work on more mathematics. He doesn't care, so I don't think we should care either. On to the next (apparently) intractable problem!
I read an article in Scientific American about how dolphins play with each other or by themselves when they're bored. Older dolphins will teach younger ones how to generate complex vorticies in the water, and then inject them with air, making these weird stable rings that they can fool around with. I just googled for the info, and this story popped up. My goldfish are pretty clever for such little animals, I guess, but they certainly don't play like this.
Moreover, the hunting patterns of dolphins are considerably more complex and 'intelligent-looking' than those of goldfish. Dolphins are more social, sure, but it takes more than a bunch of friendly animals to realize that they can use fishing nets to hunt.
Brain size and composition have ALWAYS been a bad indicator of intelligence. If it were the case merely that a big brain was enough to be smart, we'd be badly outclassed. From human to human, we'd see fair differences in intelligence, just based on the size of the brain (assuming that most human brains are composed similarly, and by increasing size, we merely increase the number of cells making up that brain -- tell me if that assumption is terribly off). Obviously this isn't true.
Fact of the situation: we're REALLY bad at figuring out what makes intelligence and what makes the brain work at all. I don't buy that goldfish are smarter yet. One study or group of studies is insufficient to make me believe this in the face of the observable evidence of intelligence or lack thereof.
The software comes with a CD, yes. Like I said, this is familiar territory to people. CD goes in the drive, the installation process starts, you hit return a bunch, and you're done. Familiarity -- or lack thereof -- is a hurdle Linux has to overcome, no matter how good it is.
Stop thinking like a geek, stop thinking like someone that reads slashdot, and stop thinking like someone that knows what they're doing and knows what they're looking for.
This is the problem with Linux on the desktop. You think too hard. You think about the interface from the perspective of someone that knows what needs to get done and knows how to do it.
Remember this one thing, and you'll start seeing people come to Linux when you can address it: Most people using computers don't know what they're doing.
When a person installs Linux, or better yet, gets a machine with Linux ON it already, they just want to plug in their iPod and put music on it. That's STEP ONE. Fail at step one, and the person returns the machine or installs something else, unless someone patient is there to help them through the first couple of weeks. Email, web browsing and the iPod. Make those go, and forget just about everything else to start with. People can get work done AT WORK. They want their home machines to do fun, useless things to start. After a week is when they'll start looking for the word processor.
Linux has the unfortunate setback of being different. Windows may suck, but it's familiar territory. People can struggle through it because it's a known quantity. They know that EVENTUALLY they'll get their task done, even if it takes longer or makes no sense.
Summary: you're too smart. Stop it. Think stupid, and we can fix this problem.
(Full disclosure: I used to use Linux but got tired of the hassle years ago. I buy Macs now because I'd rather spend the money than the time. Besides, Quicksilver is possibly the best piece of software I've ever used.:)
I saw Weinstein's talk at GDC a few months ago, and this article really doesn't do it justice. His talk is mostly speculative; there aren't any cases of accounts being sold for thousands of dollars out there. However, he does point out the stuff to be aware of when writing and designing an online game. He also doesn't limit the talk to MMOs, though that's the most common kind of online game these days. A game like Unreal Tournament with the server browser can also be a security risk, but it's worth less money than stealing gold in WoW.
If you have a chance, see his talk. He's an old-school gamer and game programmer, so he's not just some guy that understands security and nothing else.
I don't feel that your polluting car example carries any weight; there's demonstrable harm to the environment and to human beings because of the pollution. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. That's the way the market works, for good or ill. It works the same with music that you don't like listening to -- don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the artist will starve and go work as a waitress in some dingy bar, with any luck.
Art is too ephemeral to be controlled. For the sake of art, someone should be able to decide whatever they like in terms of control. If they mean to distribute and profit off of their work, well, maybe you have a point.
DRM may not be a good idea for any number of reasons, but it should be anyone's perogative to try and protect their intellectual property however they like. If it's the case that nobody wants to buy it because they find these terms and conditions to onerous, then that's their problem, not anyone else's. It IS property, just property that can't be physically held or manipulated. This doesn't make it any less deserving of protection if the artist wishes it. You wouldn't take a physical copy of the CD and commit theft, and so shouldn't you interfere with their attempt to make their music into a restricted physical analogue. However, if they give it freely, then go wild. The trick is to get everyone to give their art freely and then support their decision by attending concerts or buying merchandise or whatever.
I'm Canadian, so I like to think I have a natural distrust of capitalist systems where people get rich for very little work, but even I don't think DRM banning will solve anything. It's best to prevent MANDATORY DRM and let everything else work itself out. Incentives tend to be more effective than punishments.
I can't tell if you're serious or not with saying "mere authors anad publishers".
The creator of a work and anyone they authorize to distribute their work should have absolute control over that work, as far as I'm concerned. I should be allowed to record music in my basement and never distribute it, carve a statue that's never seen, or paint a painting and then burn it. Similarily, I should be allowed to play my music at a concert and stipulate that nobody ever records it because I feel that each concert should only be listened to once.
Whether or not you partake in these artistic endeavours -- if I allow you any opening to -- is up to you. If you don't like the DRM on a song, don't buy it. A creator should be allowed absolute control over a work of art. This isn't like patents, where ideas can literally save lives.
That said, it's a two way street. If an artist wants to work within today's framework of laws, they need to accept that they can't have control over a work in perpetuity. Laws should not apply selectively.
In any case, I believe that DRM is a stepping-stone evil that can be lived through. Apple's DRM is permissive enough that I don't care about the lock-in. I hope for a better way some day, but first you have to convince people that paying for music is worth it so that when the DRM is removed, people will actually pay for it instead of disappearing into the night. (Alternatly, we can work to convince artists that record companies are a bum deal, and they should give their music away for free, live modestly, take donations, and make money from concerts. I think working on both things is probably the best bet, actually.)
Not at all. You seem to be overly concerned with just how incredibly handicapped my example person is. They're still handicapped if they have no legs and perfectly good arms. They, like any other person, would be able to operate a computer, hold a conversation and share a cup of coffee. I'm not comparing women to quadrapalegics, the mentally handicapped, or somebody confined to a hospital bed.
Women are at a disadvantage, even today. Great strides have been made to level the playing field, and it's the closest that its ever been. I maintain that there's still a level of inequality that needs to be overcome, and letting things lie will not accomplish this. Women are not handicapped by their own inherent abilities; worse, they're handicapped by a sub-culture that seems immediately and inherently disrespectful, creating a hurdle that many women won't want to overcome. I know several women that have come through the Computing Science program at my University, and they almost universally did it by making sure to isolate themselves from the general student body, so they didn't have to put up with any nonsense.
Maybe you're right about my example, and I stretched the metaphor a bit harder than it needed, but I don't feel that at its core, it's entirely incorrect. We make provisions for people all the time. The very young, the elderly, the generally infirm -- all these people get special consideration, though often it's just an acknowledgement that not everyone is the same. In my province, you're eligible to apply for a handicapped parking spot tag once you're over 60. It's an acknowledgement that even though you may be able to walk, it's not necessarily as easy for you as when you were younger.
I still maintain that your 'admonishment' is essentially meaningless. Not only do I still not feel factually incorrect -- I don't think it's reasonable to expect handicapped people to drag themselves up stairs, and I said as much, even if they're technically capable of it -- but obviously you and I don't have the same ethical framework. At the moment, it appears that I support the ongoing equality movement more than you, so I could just as easily claim a moral high-ground. I'm not a puppy, and smacking me on the nose with a newspaper doesn't do anything. It's a waste of breath (or bits) and just makes you seem excitable and unable to fight a position on its merits, no matter how good your other arguments are.
Incidentally, you STILL haven't answered my burning question, which I've repeated at least once: what causes women to not be interested in computing, when other, equally anti-social fields have no problems attracting them? Are you leaning towards sunspots, or something in the water?
What if I made my case more specific? For instance, that of a person in a wheelchair with perfectly functional arms? I can make this restriction without any loss of generality, and now I fit your criteria just fine. The person can now successfully pull themselves up the stairs -- by definition.
It's STILL entirely unreasonable to force a person that CAN do it to do it. It's not fair. It's discriminatory. It takes so little effort for us to put up a ramp to enable such a person to easily access a building. If I didn't put up a ramp and the person chose not to, I certainly wouldn't hold it against them. This is the same in this case. I don't hold it against women that decide to not join the ranks of us computer nerds. The psychological barrier to entry is something that they shouldn't have to overcome.
'Seperate but equal' still isn't the same thing as what I'm talking about. You'll notice that their decision would have no bearing on my ramp example. It's OBVIOUS that a person in a wheelchair is being treated differently, but it's in order to give them equality that they wouldn't normally easily have access to. That ramp is for their benefit only, and by treating them different, we've made them equal to anyone on two legs. We're not treated identically -- stairs and ramps are not identical. But they ARE equal. Much like 4+6 = 10 and 5+5 = 10. The equations are hardly identical, but they ARE equal.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't like the 'seperate but equal' thing either, which is why I'm a strong supporter of equal marriage (something that I'm very proud of my country -- Canada -- for implementing).
The difference is that schooling, for instance, doesn't need to be different for blacks and whites. They speak the same language, have the same eyes, ears, arms, legs and brains. If you taught them from behind a wall and never saw them, it wouldn't make any difference. That decision was made to end unfair segregation, and thus make everyone equal. (The subtext, which I'm sure you already understand, is that black schools never ACTUALLY would have been equal, so ending the seperation was actually the only way to ensure equal treatment. Or close to it.) Programs like the one that this thread are discussing aim to bring equality by ushering people in that normally wouldn't be there. A woman that rejects this field out of hand, or rejects OSS projects because she feels that she'll be outcast for her gender now has an opportunity to work in an environment that's more comfortable to her as a stepping stone to working with everyone else. This isn't to say that she isn't capable, merely apprehensive.
(As an aside, your 'jackass' comment doesn't really bother me. I don't know you, and to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think about me. However, resorting to name-calling isn't any way to win an argument, or even present your side of an argument. You could have easily left it out and still gotten your point across. It's nice that you feel strongly about this sort of thing; I do too, and it's people like us that make democracys strong. But don't fall into the politician's trap of trying to get a dig in at your opponent -- that's what's ruining our democracys right now.:P)
I agree with you, but if you look at the correct segment of 'the public' -- namely the kiddies that are getting tied in a knot because MySpace has been a bit glitchy of late -- Apple may be in a good position. They're targeting the same people that line up for iPods. That may not be Mr. and Mrs. Joe America, but their 2.5 children are ripe for conversion.
Slashdot Mirror
"Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, one foot in front of the other, and see how many steps it takes. My feet are each just about 1 foot long, and it works pretty reliably."
Likewise, if I need to estimate the length of the room and I don't have a measuring device, do you know how I do it? I walk, taking normal strides, and see how many steps it takes. My strides are each just about 1 metre long, and it works pretty reliably.
Unfortunately, both our statements vary from person to person. Most people DON'T have feet that are about a foot long, or strides that are a metre long. You're using an arbitrary piece of your body and mapping it to a measurement. Anyone can do that in any system.
I've made a point of learning my height and mass in metric. Now that I've fully converted myself to metric, and reject imperial measurements that are sort-of common here, things are much easier. I'm 190cm tall and mass 80kg.
The thing with metric is that the small bits are easier to remember. The only imperial units that I know are pounds, yards, feet and inches. I can convert inches to feet, feet to yards, and that's about it. I don't understand ounces (fluid or mass, and that's an extra confusion right there; how do you tell someone that you want 15 ounces of fluid by mass without being confusing?), I don't know how many yards or inches in a mile, etc.
I know what a kilogram is. Intuitively, I know that it's about 3 cans of pop, or one 1 litre pop bottle. My mass, then, is easier to figure out in those kinds of terms, 'cause I can tell people about how many of something or another I weigh. I'm almost 2 metres tall, but not quite. If you need to know my height in kilometres, I can do that for you pretty quickly. I can also give you my height in millimetres if you want that. A cubic metre? Well, that's 1000L, if we're talking about water. Since a litre of water masses 1kg, it means that a cubic metre of water masses one metric tonne. If I'm trying to figure out large masses, that's an easy reference to go back to. And I know that water freezes at 0C, boils at 100C (assuming fairly standard pressure). My car gets about 5L/100km on the highway (it really does!). I also know that when the low fuel light comes on, I have 7L left in the tank, according to the manual. That means I've got at least 100km left in the tank.
A lot of it has to do with what you were taught, but I could have gotten away with being taught a lot less and still managed to figure out this stuff fairly trivially. I just need to know about grams, metres and power-of-ten prefixes, and I'm good to go. There's a good reason that metric is the system of choice for science.
I did quote selectively, but if you read my comment carefully I said, "So the guys that did Opera did the tabbed thing first; they released the Opera browser later."
I actually preferred the older MDI interface in some ways; you could tile a couple pages together in the same window and look at them side by side. I'm just taking exception to him saying that IE did it first because they didn't. Even if you consider the NetCaptor extension the first tabbed browsing experience, Microsoft didn't do it, so it's still somewhat disingenuous for him to mention it at all.
"In regards to tabs, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabbed_browsing, NetCaptor (an IE-based browser) was first."
From the Wikipedia article:
"BookLink Technologies pioneered this interface design in its InternetWorks browser in 1994. Independently, the founders of Opera built an MDI-based browser in the same year (via a technical preview not available publicly; a public release was made in 1996). The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997."
So the guys that did Opera did the tabbed thing first; they released the Opera browser later. The public release of the tabbed browser was still done months before the IE shell modification.
Hey, I liked Jade Empire.
Thanks. I like Slashdot.
I would argue that a system that allows itself to be distrusted in this fashion, a system that doesn't command the highest level of confidence of its users -- that's what's really at fault. Conspiracy theorists abound, certainly, but one of the problems is that this conspiracy doesn't seem that far fetched. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. Many (all?) of the things that are claimed in the article are verifiable. Whether they add up to a stolen election may be something else, but that people can have a moment of doubt is at the core, here.
There's no perfect solution, but surely there's a better solution than this.
I can't possibly list all the things that are wrong with all the other countries in the world. I'm well aware of China's human rights record, the fact that Putin seems to be trying to push his country back towards a total dictatorship, Brazil's continuing rape of the rainforests and our government's inability to stop oil companies from destroying the land around the oil sands as well as refusing to enact any meaningful legislation to actually clean things up and make people change how they use energy. All of these things are well known to me. I personally feel that everyone should stop picking on Israel and try to get on with their lives without a tiny little patch of land that's barely enough for the Jews to call home. To ask me to criticize everyone equally is an impossible task, and I'm not going to get started on it. I can only work on what's wrong in my own country in a meaningful fashion, and I do what I can when I can.
All of this is entirely beside the point.
This all started with this post: "It's probably even harder for indoctrinated non-Americans to understand that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly narcissistic, or remotely wealthy. At this point, in fact, the bulk of us are starting to get pretty damn sick and tired of both those SUV-driving narcissistic fuckwits that we have to contend with on the way to work every day, and judgmental foreigners that insist upon treating America (of all countries) as a monolithic culture. "
I still don't have anything in particular against America, certainly no more so than any other country. The only reason you're having this conversation with me at all is because I decided to step up and give a reason for the reason you Americans get so much flak. You don't have to accept anything that I say, but I represent a viewpoint that's
a) external to your worldview by virtue of literally being outside of the situation
b) probably not far off from what most of these other 'judgemental foreigners'
Your country has problems. You'll admit that much, obviously; you've said as much yourself.
If you've read my other posts, you'll note that I also said that you're probably the most scrutinized nation on earth. The fact that I know what's going on in some of your mid-term election primaries speaks to the fact that I can get news about your country from where I'm sitting, thousands of kilometres away.
The grandparent poster wanted us 'judgemental foreigners' to back off, and I was giving some reasons for why we seem so critical. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, I'm afraid. You'll also have to concede that there are a lot of outsiders that have a dim view of your population and your administration.
Let me point out something that's particularly telling about YOUR post, while we're here anyway.
Your three points aren't the 'shortcomings of [your] enemies'. Realistically, there are a lot of people allied with you that think these things or harbour these feelings. You really need to chuck this 'you're either with us or against us' shtick. It's not endearing, and it's a false assertion. Canada didn't join you in Iraq. This doesn't mean that we're against you. My fellow citizens happily took in American people stranded in our airports when 9/11 happened. I'm sure we'd do it again.
Anti-Americanism isn't any more acceptable than anti-Islamism, but again I ask: what else would you have the world think of you? Only a small number of Muslims are crazy enough to blow themselves up to hurt other people, but a whole religious group is being painted with the same brush because the majority that doesn't kill people haven't spoken up loudly enough. As with most groups, the loudest and most obnoxious are the ones that you notice. For most of us in the world, your President is as loud and obnoxious as they come. Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly are all crazy loud people that you can hear all the way across the pond. You've got John Steward and Stephen Colbert trying to even out the odds, but then the nex
Trying to be popular is a losing game when the crowd is biased against you. The US has interests that occasionally conflict even with our closest allies. We have beliefs and cultures that are different and will probably stay that way. The US also is a convenient scapegoat for many disfunctional societies in the Third World. So why take the effort to be nice when you lose it each time you have a disagreement? I think everyone would be better off if they understood that everyone else has different goals and isn't going to agree on everything.
:(
That's the World Peace problem in a nutshell. I don't think we'll live to see it.
I'd really like to know where you got 'USA-basher' out of my post. I went back and re-read it and confirmed that the point I was trying to get across that it doesn't matter how great your country is, you're going to get it in the pants in the perceptions game for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that basically nobody in the 5.7 billion non-US population has any love for GWB at all.
Your country gets a lot of scrutiny. There's a lot of misperception and misconception about your country, but think about the news that comes out about your country on a day to day basis. Evolution is more strongly accepted in just about every nation on Earth, including the ones that define themselves as strongly Christian. Your country, a symbol for individual human rights, struggles with Gay Rights and the PATRIOT act and pharmacists that won't give contraceptives to women because they think it's wrong.
Is it fair that all Americans get painted with the same brush? I hardly think so; no more than it's fair to associate purely negative things to any group of people. However, it's not something that America has ever tried to change, or perhaps has any particular desire to change. That's fine, good for you for having a thick skin. But if you're going to complain that you're not getting a fair shake, think about the things that are likely to be seen by the rest of the world first and work to change that image.
I'm impressed with what you've managed to read out from between the lines that I certainly didn't put there. You're defensive; I understand. It sucks when people don't like your country and there's no good reason for it. Perception's an ugly bitch.
I certainly didn't try to imply in my response to you that China and Russia are nations that stack up favourably to the US. China has obvious problems of its own, but I DO have a cultural tie to it that I won't ignore. Russia's a basketcase that I only have ties to because half my family was in that area 80 years ago.
The American era of imperialism has certainly existed for long before they got involved with Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 6 years. America's exploits in the middle east propping up dictatorships and replacing rulers to be those more favourable towards the US is well known and well documented. It just doesn't seem like it's been going on because it ended up working so very poorly.
I'll summarize for you again, and maybe you'll read what I'm putting in the text as opposed to things that I didn't explicitly write: it doesn't matter what you think of your country when dealing with stereotypes. It doesn't matter what the truth of the situation is. The world doesn't like your leader, and your outward image of a fat (30+% obese now, by population? The real problem is poverty; arguably some of these people have no choice in the matter), polluting (#1 polluter in the world, at least for now. Per capita, better than Canada, I hear), and consumptive (Americans personally carry some of the highest debt-load per capita of any nation, presumably to fund their need for stuff) may not be well deserved, but it's certainly what's reported on. You voted for a leader -- twice -- that is only currently supported by about 30% of your population. I don't think I'm saying anything that other AMERICANS don't say on a daily basis. Actually, I consume more American news (albeit left-leaning stuff like Salon, the Huffington Post, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report) on a daily basis than I do Canadian news. My views are never much more than a stone's throw away from what's being printed and produced in your own popular media. When I DO listen to Canadian news, these days it's about how yet another international court has ruled in favour of Canada in the current softwood lumber dispute that we're embroiled in, but your government refusing to acquiesce to the rulings. Now, out of desperation, we're taking a compromise deal that we shouldn't have to.
What other image could you ever expect the States to have, especially in Canada? People don't remember the good things that others do. Negatives stick much more strongly in the memory, and negatives are in the news. It's not news if your citizens are calm, conserving athletes that donate to charity, I'm afraid, even if it should be.
I'll make you a deal: you work on getting your brethren to stop jumping to conclusions based on peoples' race or religion or country of residence, and I'll do what I can to get my brethren to stop thinking of Americans in such an unkind way. We have a rather hard job, since we're up against professionals like Coulter and Limbaugh, who try to pass themselves off as 'average' Americans, 'educating' the rest of the population about how nasty we Canadians are, but it all has to start somewhere, I guess.
:)
If you can get them into a dark alley, I'll bring the bat.
I don't disagree with you. Misperception is at the heart of this matter. But in the end, perception is usually what counts for the most, not truth. Are all people on welfare lazy and unmotivated? No, not at all. Yet, this is often the perception that is held, and it's hard to dissuade people of it. People see the Chinese government as overbearing, overly intrusive and cruel. From their perspective, I'm sure they think they're decisive, concerned and driven.
;).
Most of the World's problems are a matter of this misperception. Not all Muslims are terrorists (a vanishingly small percentage of them are, actually). Not all Americans are fat, lazy and stupid (just the ones that show up on the news, unfortunately). Not all Canadians are pot-smoking hippies that live in igloos (just the lucky ones
I wasn't clear with my 'get rid of' remark. I meant it strictly in the voting sense. If we had time and room for a real discussion, you'd find out that the rule of law is something that I put a lot of stock in, even if the laws are stupid. In those cases, you work to change the law; you don't flaunt it. (I doggedly drive the speed limit, even though I think I'd be a safe driver at higher speeds. That's not my call to make.)
My position is likely not very much different from your fellow Americans that consider themselves 'left wing'. I'm dubious over the election results, but I don't necessarily think that the election was stolen. This is so much the worse in the case of the 2004 elections. If those really were the most accurate results possible, it means that America decided that keeping GWB in office was the best course for the country, and not enough people could be motivated to say that it wasn't. Polls indicate that your population may be wising up to it now, but it's a bit late for saying sorry.
I'm really not trying to get into a debate about the relative merits of your country and political system. I'm merely trying to point out that the World's perception of your population is poor, with GWB being among the many reasons. International geeks also get to read about your Net Neutrality Act, the PATRIOT act, and every mistake Homeland Security makes. The truth of the matter is largely irrelevant. You have an image problem.
Yes, thank you for the nice lecture. That you can type a coherent sentence and sound high-handed about this whole thing doesn't change the perception of your country by the rest of the world at all.
Frankly, I suspect your entire response to me as being ironic; nobody would describe Bush as a 'moderate conservative' -- especially not his supporters.
Amusingly, the person looking back out of the mirror at me is someone that's half-Chinese, and half-White-Russian. I briefly felt bad about the bad-mouthing of a Chinese mathematician, since I feel no small amount of pride when I hear about Chinese doing well in the world, but then I remembered that every country and race fields its share of jerks.
Face facts: nobody likes Bush. Electing him again made your country look really bad in the eyes of the world. Whether or not you think this is fair, whether or not you think that Bush really is the 'moderate conservative' that you claim him to be -- neither of those things matter. Your country has a long standing reputation for wasteful imperialism. Crying to me that it isn't fair doesn't change that.
Finally, I don't think that Canada has done any better a job fixing any sort of environmental crisis than the US. My province (Alberta) still shamelessly kowtows to the big oil companies raping the land around the oil sands, worried that raising taxes or imposing any sort of meaningful environmental restrictions will cause them to spontaneously generate and move to another massive source of oil somewhere else in the world. Stephen Harper, our current Prime Minister is from southern Alberta, and has the outward appearance of an unfeeling, yet evil, robot bent on doing meaningless fiddling in the guise of getting some work done. I have no shortage of criticism for my fellow citizens and their capacity to pick up on the worst kinds of American behaviours that they no doubt learn from sitting in front of the television far too much. Don't take my criticism of your country and my attempt to explain where all these nasty off-hand comments come from as some sort of tacit approval of every other system out there. I've read the history books and I know the good your country and your people have done. Your lecturing only feeds the stereotypes that everyone holds.
I'm going to deviate wildly from the actual conversation at hand and put in two cents real fast. (Moderators, just ignore this post. Nobody reads at +1 except you anyway, so modding me down is just a waste of points.)
:), but as a population, you're overbearing, wasteful and crude. If you want people around the world to think better of you (which in and of itself would be somewhat novel -- it implies that you admit that there's a 'rest of the world' ;) you have to do something about it. You may not care -- that's your right -- but then you can't complain about the generalizations that are made about you.
:)
People around the world believe what they do about America because from all outward appearances, very little is being done about it. When there was a question about the validity of an election in Ukraine, Ukranians came out and protested in huge numbers until something was done about it. It was the truest expression of democracy that the world has seen in a long time. Ultimately, they have the US to thank in large part for even giving them that opportunity, but when it looked like their rights were in jeopardy, they stood up and didn't waste the opportunity offered them.
In comparison, two American elections went by with a comparative whimper from those that felt the election results weren't necessarily on the up and up. For Americans to not be able to rid themselves of someone like GWB if they really wanted to is ridiculous, so the perception is that really, that's who America wanted to lead them, even if 49.9% of the population voted against him.
I'm Canadian, and I'm friends with many Americans. On an individual basis, Americans that I'm friendly with think very much like I do (for good or ill; I'm a filthy socialist hippie
Anyway, long story short: I'm sure you're very nice, are just as tired of the SUV driving morons that ruin your country as we are, and don't necessarily fit every American stereotype. Don't take it too personally when the rest of us complain about your compatriots. We'll try not to take it personally when you make fun of our oddly coloured money.
Perelman will be the one that goes down in history as the one that solved the conjecture to a satisfactory degree, no matter who else releases papers that pretend that his work was incomprehensible. That sort of argument doesn't really stand up very well, anyway; if it were easy to understand, it's likely someone would have trivially solved it earlier. The Chinese may very well have an army of extremely competent mathematicians, and two or three of them may have cleaned up Perelman's work to be a little more friendly to the mathematics community at large, but I suspect that Perelman will be the name that everyone remembers.
He's done his bit, people will remember him, and he'll get to work on more mathematics. He doesn't care, so I don't think we should care either. On to the next (apparently) intractable problem!
I read an article in Scientific American about how dolphins play with each other or by themselves when they're bored. Older dolphins will teach younger ones how to generate complex vorticies in the water, and then inject them with air, making these weird stable rings that they can fool around with. I just googled for the info, and this story popped up. My goldfish are pretty clever for such little animals, I guess, but they certainly don't play like this.
Moreover, the hunting patterns of dolphins are considerably more complex and 'intelligent-looking' than those of goldfish. Dolphins are more social, sure, but it takes more than a bunch of friendly animals to realize that they can use fishing nets to hunt.
Brain size and composition have ALWAYS been a bad indicator of intelligence. If it were the case merely that a big brain was enough to be smart, we'd be badly outclassed. From human to human, we'd see fair differences in intelligence, just based on the size of the brain (assuming that most human brains are composed similarly, and by increasing size, we merely increase the number of cells making up that brain -- tell me if that assumption is terribly off). Obviously this isn't true.
Fact of the situation: we're REALLY bad at figuring out what makes intelligence and what makes the brain work at all. I don't buy that goldfish are smarter yet. One study or group of studies is insufficient to make me believe this in the face of the observable evidence of intelligence or lack thereof.
The software comes with a CD, yes. Like I said, this is familiar territory to people. CD goes in the drive, the installation process starts, you hit return a bunch, and you're done. Familiarity -- or lack thereof -- is a hurdle Linux has to overcome, no matter how good it is.
No, you still don't get it. Too many choices.
:)
Stop thinking like a geek, stop thinking like someone that reads slashdot, and stop thinking like someone that knows what they're doing and knows what they're looking for.
This is the problem with Linux on the desktop. You think too hard. You think about the interface from the perspective of someone that knows what needs to get done and knows how to do it.
Remember this one thing, and you'll start seeing people come to Linux when you can address it: Most people using computers don't know what they're doing.
When a person installs Linux, or better yet, gets a machine with Linux ON it already, they just want to plug in their iPod and put music on it. That's STEP ONE. Fail at step one, and the person returns the machine or installs something else, unless someone patient is there to help them through the first couple of weeks. Email, web browsing and the iPod. Make those go, and forget just about everything else to start with. People can get work done AT WORK. They want their home machines to do fun, useless things to start. After a week is when they'll start looking for the word processor.
Linux has the unfortunate setback of being different. Windows may suck, but it's familiar territory. People can struggle through it because it's a known quantity. They know that EVENTUALLY they'll get their task done, even if it takes longer or makes no sense.
Summary: you're too smart. Stop it. Think stupid, and we can fix this problem.
(Full disclosure: I used to use Linux but got tired of the hassle years ago. I buy Macs now because I'd rather spend the money than the time. Besides, Quicksilver is possibly the best piece of software I've ever used.
Fair enough. The $10,000 number is still a little over blown, right? :)
I saw Weinstein's talk at GDC a few months ago, and this article really doesn't do it justice. His talk is mostly speculative; there aren't any cases of accounts being sold for thousands of dollars out there. However, he does point out the stuff to be aware of when writing and designing an online game. He also doesn't limit the talk to MMOs, though that's the most common kind of online game these days. A game like Unreal Tournament with the server browser can also be a security risk, but it's worth less money than stealing gold in WoW.
If you have a chance, see his talk. He's an old-school gamer and game programmer, so he's not just some guy that understands security and nothing else.
I don't feel that your polluting car example carries any weight; there's demonstrable harm to the environment and to human beings because of the pollution. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. That's the way the market works, for good or ill. It works the same with music that you don't like listening to -- don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the artist will starve and go work as a waitress in some dingy bar, with any luck.
Art is too ephemeral to be controlled. For the sake of art, someone should be able to decide whatever they like in terms of control. If they mean to distribute and profit off of their work, well, maybe you have a point.
DRM may not be a good idea for any number of reasons, but it should be anyone's perogative to try and protect their intellectual property however they like. If it's the case that nobody wants to buy it because they find these terms and conditions to onerous, then that's their problem, not anyone else's. It IS property, just property that can't be physically held or manipulated. This doesn't make it any less deserving of protection if the artist wishes it. You wouldn't take a physical copy of the CD and commit theft, and so shouldn't you interfere with their attempt to make their music into a restricted physical analogue. However, if they give it freely, then go wild. The trick is to get everyone to give their art freely and then support their decision by attending concerts or buying merchandise or whatever.
I'm Canadian, so I like to think I have a natural distrust of capitalist systems where people get rich for very little work, but even I don't think DRM banning will solve anything. It's best to prevent MANDATORY DRM and let everything else work itself out. Incentives tend to be more effective than punishments.
I can't tell if you're serious or not with saying "mere authors anad publishers".
The creator of a work and anyone they authorize to distribute their work should have absolute control over that work, as far as I'm concerned. I should be allowed to record music in my basement and never distribute it, carve a statue that's never seen, or paint a painting and then burn it. Similarily, I should be allowed to play my music at a concert and stipulate that nobody ever records it because I feel that each concert should only be listened to once.
Whether or not you partake in these artistic endeavours -- if I allow you any opening to -- is up to you. If you don't like the DRM on a song, don't buy it. A creator should be allowed absolute control over a work of art. This isn't like patents, where ideas can literally save lives.
That said, it's a two way street. If an artist wants to work within today's framework of laws, they need to accept that they can't have control over a work in perpetuity. Laws should not apply selectively.
In any case, I believe that DRM is a stepping-stone evil that can be lived through. Apple's DRM is permissive enough that I don't care about the lock-in. I hope for a better way some day, but first you have to convince people that paying for music is worth it so that when the DRM is removed, people will actually pay for it instead of disappearing into the night. (Alternatly, we can work to convince artists that record companies are a bum deal, and they should give their music away for free, live modestly, take donations, and make money from concerts. I think working on both things is probably the best bet, actually.)
Not at all. You seem to be overly concerned with just how incredibly handicapped my example person is. They're still handicapped if they have no legs and perfectly good arms. They, like any other person, would be able to operate a computer, hold a conversation and share a cup of coffee. I'm not comparing women to quadrapalegics, the mentally handicapped, or somebody confined to a hospital bed.
Women are at a disadvantage, even today. Great strides have been made to level the playing field, and it's the closest that its ever been. I maintain that there's still a level of inequality that needs to be overcome, and letting things lie will not accomplish this. Women are not handicapped by their own inherent abilities; worse, they're handicapped by a sub-culture that seems immediately and inherently disrespectful, creating a hurdle that many women won't want to overcome. I know several women that have come through the Computing Science program at my University, and they almost universally did it by making sure to isolate themselves from the general student body, so they didn't have to put up with any nonsense.
Maybe you're right about my example, and I stretched the metaphor a bit harder than it needed, but I don't feel that at its core, it's entirely incorrect. We make provisions for people all the time. The very young, the elderly, the generally infirm -- all these people get special consideration, though often it's just an acknowledgement that not everyone is the same. In my province, you're eligible to apply for a handicapped parking spot tag once you're over 60. It's an acknowledgement that even though you may be able to walk, it's not necessarily as easy for you as when you were younger.
I still maintain that your 'admonishment' is essentially meaningless. Not only do I still not feel factually incorrect -- I don't think it's reasonable to expect handicapped people to drag themselves up stairs, and I said as much, even if they're technically capable of it -- but obviously you and I don't have the same ethical framework. At the moment, it appears that I support the ongoing equality movement more than you, so I could just as easily claim a moral high-ground. I'm not a puppy, and smacking me on the nose with a newspaper doesn't do anything. It's a waste of breath (or bits) and just makes you seem excitable and unable to fight a position on its merits, no matter how good your other arguments are.
Incidentally, you STILL haven't answered my burning question, which I've repeated at least once: what causes women to not be interested in computing, when other, equally anti-social fields have no problems attracting them? Are you leaning towards sunspots, or something in the water?
What if I made my case more specific? For instance, that of a person in a wheelchair with perfectly functional arms? I can make this restriction without any loss of generality, and now I fit your criteria just fine. The person can now successfully pull themselves up the stairs -- by definition.
:P)
It's STILL entirely unreasonable to force a person that CAN do it to do it. It's not fair. It's discriminatory. It takes so little effort for us to put up a ramp to enable such a person to easily access a building. If I didn't put up a ramp and the person chose not to, I certainly wouldn't hold it against them. This is the same in this case. I don't hold it against women that decide to not join the ranks of us computer nerds. The psychological barrier to entry is something that they shouldn't have to overcome.
'Seperate but equal' still isn't the same thing as what I'm talking about. You'll notice that their decision would have no bearing on my ramp example. It's OBVIOUS that a person in a wheelchair is being treated differently, but it's in order to give them equality that they wouldn't normally easily have access to. That ramp is for their benefit only, and by treating them different, we've made them equal to anyone on two legs. We're not treated identically -- stairs and ramps are not identical. But they ARE equal. Much like 4+6 = 10 and 5+5 = 10. The equations are hardly identical, but they ARE equal.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't like the 'seperate but equal' thing either, which is why I'm a strong supporter of equal marriage (something that I'm very proud of my country -- Canada -- for implementing).
The difference is that schooling, for instance, doesn't need to be different for blacks and whites. They speak the same language, have the same eyes, ears, arms, legs and brains. If you taught them from behind a wall and never saw them, it wouldn't make any difference. That decision was made to end unfair segregation, and thus make everyone equal. (The subtext, which I'm sure you already understand, is that black schools never ACTUALLY would have been equal, so ending the seperation was actually the only way to ensure equal treatment. Or close to it.) Programs like the one that this thread are discussing aim to bring equality by ushering people in that normally wouldn't be there. A woman that rejects this field out of hand, or rejects OSS projects because she feels that she'll be outcast for her gender now has an opportunity to work in an environment that's more comfortable to her as a stepping stone to working with everyone else. This isn't to say that she isn't capable, merely apprehensive.
(As an aside, your 'jackass' comment doesn't really bother me. I don't know you, and to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think about me. However, resorting to name-calling isn't any way to win an argument, or even present your side of an argument. You could have easily left it out and still gotten your point across. It's nice that you feel strongly about this sort of thing; I do too, and it's people like us that make democracys strong. But don't fall into the politician's trap of trying to get a dig in at your opponent -- that's what's ruining our democracys right now.
I agree with you, but if you look at the correct segment of 'the public' -- namely the kiddies that are getting tied in a knot because MySpace has been a bit glitchy of late -- Apple may be in a good position. They're targeting the same people that line up for iPods. That may not be Mr. and Mrs. Joe America, but their 2.5 children are ripe for conversion.