As others have noted, 'Edge' looks like the latest round of hype now that 'cloud' has pretty much settled down. It's an attempt to create a difference where there really isn't one.
As you say, for most people who have neither the inclination or skills to set a lot of this up for themselves, the convenience of having someone manage this for them trumps privacy, security or the sort of control that I/we might value.
Cloud is here to stay and better serves most people. There are probably more people, now, who can run their own networks and servers than there were ten years ago, but we're an ever shrinking percentage of the internet using whole.
10 years from now, some company is going to make a killing selling me a device that can do those things and not have to connect
You aren't a market. People like you (such as myself) who value that, aren't a big enough market for anyone to make a killing from us. Between first-to-market advantages and lower costs because of centralising those tasks, I'm not seeing how a new competitor is going to be cheaper or offer more, and absent those you don't have a competitor.
This is how Google falls
Perhaps. Established players become complacent and can be outcompeted by changes in the market. I'm just not sure that 'not connected' is going to be that watershed.
Then you end up with a kind of captive population that has to work meaningless jobs with no time to look for work or train/educate themselves to find employment in a new field once their old field disappeared either from automation or outsourcing. They compete with the bottom end of the working pool, people for whom a relatively low-skilled job is all they are capable of. If the government is the employer, the govt. compete with private industry that previously provided the services that the government is now providing with their discounted labour.
Additionally, workers in these programs are at risk of losing their access to welfare (which is supposed to be a kind of social safety net) and so dare not report workplace violations of safety, for example.
If the program is voluntary, but has perks like welfare + amount; if there is a real prospect of either improving one's chance of future employment (education, experience and/training training) and if the structure of the program doesn't negatively impact either businesses or workers at the low end of the skill/pay scale, then maybe. Getting all that to line up is non-trivial. Australia has something like this, in intent, but it has problems in practice. Ref Work for the Dole and then reports like this which cite things like the safety issue and fear by people in the program of making complaints or reports.
we've even heard of spammers being murdered on the street and it didn't stop more spammers from coming up to take their place
I'm not sure that this solution has been properly and thoroughly tested, and I don't think, in good conscience and out of respect for the scientific principle that we can dismiss it so casually until we have more evidence.
Personally I'm a fan of a Lex Talionis type solution, where for every piece of Spam (unsolicted commercial email) sent, the sender must recieve (eat) one 'piece' of Spam (spiced ham). In one sitting. I'm happy for piece to be set at 1g. Small time offenders should survive that. And be suitable chastened.
I lean left enough that I've been called socialist, but this is nonsense.
The popular masses have long desired an independent new society in which all of them live well on an equal footing free from exploitation, oppression, domination and subordination.
That you call people 'the masses' gives a pretty clear insight into how you view people; that there's a line and that you're on one side and 'they' are on another. The 'masses' are people. Some want change, others really don't. Most want to be safe and well fed, free, as you say from exploitation and oppression but while some may certainly wish for equality for all, others are just as keen on being above other people.
Socialism makes it possible to realize such an ideal and capitalism tramples it down.
Like so many things, the poison is in the dose. Both are toxic in extremum; both have strengths and benefits as well as weaknesses.
Socialism provides genuine freedom and equality for all people.
The same kind of simplisitc and idealistic definitions can be used to justify capitalism. It's hollow rhetoric and little different to any other religion. It's an article of faith that denies anything that contradicts its axioms.
In the capitalist society complete equality cannot be provided as it is based on individualism
Complete equality cannot be provided, period. It's a direction, not a destination. Confusing the two leads to some truly horrible consequences.
and it is the law of human history to advance toward socialism
It is equally true that it is a law of human history to advance towards capitalism. Maintaining a balance and tension between the two is a reflection of the balance between co-operation and competition that is inherent to all social species. Thinking that one is greater or better than the other, overall, is like declaring that your right side is better than your left.
Transition from capitalism to socialism is a law-governed process of the development of human society.
'Law' is a social construct. It can be good or bad, oppressive or the expressed will of the people. All you are saying is that it's organised. Their have been _genocides_ that were law-governed. This is a hollow piece of rhetoric devoid of any meaning while trying to appear to be a claim of moral superiority. If you belive this, I pity you. If you are parroting this, then you're a useful fool.
Socialism is an inevitable phase in the development of history and it is a rule, but it does not come true of itself.
All true of capitalism. This is like a horoscope. Statements that appear to be meaningful but which are so vague and broadly defined that they are trivially obvious.
Socialism advances amid a fierce struggle against all hues of counter-revolutionary forces including the imperialists.
Power accumulates until the inequality exceeds the tolerance of those oppressed. Imperialism is sometimes opposed by socialism, sometimes by capitalism (look at the beginnings of the French Revolution, where it was the rising merchant class that began to protest the power of the aristocracy, allied with the workers against a common 'foe'). Sadly, each revolution simply transfers power from one group to another. The initial success of the revolution is in the relaxation and reversal of the accumulation of power, but rather than recognising that, a new group steps in to try to accumulate power to themselves. Socialists will claim it's for 'everyone' but if you really want to oppose centralised power, you need to find some way to make anarchism scale and stable - I'd kind of hoped that ubiquitous communication tech might make that possible, but it won't in my generation. Otherwise the best you can hope for is a kind of cyclic oscillation between accumulation and relaxation. Or revolution. I'll
Hydrogen is not a fuel in the sense that petrol is.
It's an energy transport medium that has a 'fuel' stage so that existing infrastructure (esp. businesses) can adapt rather than being replaced.
Coal, gas, solar, hydro etc. are the energy source for hydrogen, same as for batteries. Better energy density might be possible with hydrogen fuel cells, but tying them to the existing fuel delivery process is an advantage for the incumbents only.
Uh, Shakespeare is Western culture. It's not universal.
I have no idea what this is responding to. I answered a question about why someone should write an essay on Shakespeare.
Shakespeare's works are important and influential elements of English speaking culture and hence to a lesser degree Western culture more generally. Understanding that is a useful element of a broad education.
universities
Which universities? All? Some? A hand-wave?
are ridding themselves
I think that there is a need for both conservative (in a literal resisting change meaning of the word) and progresive/reactionary (advocating change) tensions within society. Exaggerating the change you object to without reason or even argument is hollow and essentially meaningless.
of in favor of hard left literature
OMG, universities are left-leaning. News at 11. Probable conservative labeling anything that isn't conservative as 'hard left'. More mock surprise.
The sooner dead white European males are banished from the canon, the better, amirite?
No. Not 'rite'. But perhaps you've been comfortable so long that any change is terrifying.
We're moving a little away from the essay = good/bad, but with respect to Shakespeare;
Whether you like Shakespeare or not, or are even just ambivalent, his work is incredibly influential on the English speaking culture. Being exposed to that, having at least an understanding if not interest or appreciation helps to create a more rounded education.
More, exposing yourself to things you don't particularly like on a regular basis helps stop the shrinking of the comfort zone over time. I'm not talking about doing things you actively dislike, but if you only do those things you are good at, or engage in those things you like, the list of both dwindles over time and your ability to deal with new situations atrophies.
Interested people are interesting. People who challenge themselves on a regular basis retain the ability to deal with new or less-than-comfortable situations. Broadly educated people bring insight and out-of-the-box ideas to even their main fields of interest.
To quote Heinlein 'specialisation is for insects.'
so why should they force me to write essays on "Shakespeare and the Semicolon"
Because we're only a step or two away from a plains ape and have trouble forming personal connections with more than about 200-300 people. We've some biological wiring that gets worked up about 'other' and 'outsider'. Shared culture helps. It teaches or reminds us of the values that we share. It means that if I meet someone from someplace I've never been, that I can make some assumptions about how they will act and behave based on shared values. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.
You don't have to look at the elements that are important in building or defining that culture. You can pick most of it up second hand, so to speak, but living in and among people who have been shaped by exposure to those elements, but when the aim of education in more than just learning a skill, but is also about producing members of society who are well educated, then taking at least a minor look at some of the more influential elements and how they have come to be that way is useful.
Your essay on Shakespeare isn't the equivalent of a differential equation. It's closer to multiplication. It's basic, high school stuff.
Given that almost all the stories featuring those laws were about exceptions or problems with the laws, I got the impression that the overarching message was that simplistic expressions of morality and/or ethics is _hard_ and likely to cause more problems than it solves.
It's been a long while since I read Asimov, so I may be adding later commentary to my recollection.
Just as 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint (joking) so too Asimov's laws (more seriously).
If by 'in control' you mean their lives are dependent on a) being attractive (for various cultural and historic values of 'attractive') enough to attract a successful mate and b) getting (usually) one shot at making a decision that will tie her success to that of the selected mate. Better pick well.
I hear all the time about the patriarchy. It does not exist.
You make a compelling argument. Your list of reasons, supported as they are by references and data has convinced me. Bravo.
Feminists may say that women want wimpy, obsequious men
Straw man. Talked to a feminist, recently?
The only thing that ultimately matters is who women who reproduce choose to reproduce with,
Simplistic understanding of the influence of non-reproducing adults on behaviour of offspring of reproducing adults. See 'gay uncle benefit' for eg.
they want competitive, successful alpha males
Weird, right? It's almost like the environmental drives that gave rise to a successful behaviour isn't as useful once we stopped being nomadic hunters and isolated tribal villagers and now live in complex social environments where treating every non-family male as a threat isn't as useful as it once once was.
There's nothing stopping women from being independent film directors
Yes there is. Funding. Which is harder for women to get than men. Up to about the short film direction, male and female directors have a similar path - then female directors have a harder time getting funding.
There's a world of films between mainstream Hollywood blockbuster and self-funded, and females find greater barriers to entry than do males.
You're correct when you say people don't get the job because they are male. They don't get rejected because they aren't female. It ranges from the not-so-subtle 'I won't be directed by a female' through the, 'there's a lot of egos and males are just better at making things work' through to unconscious biases like yours that assumes that there isn't a problem because no-one's hiring males just because they are males.
The thing about all the 'work hard, wait for your chance' rhetoric is that it ignores that not all work is rewarded equally and not everyone gets the same chance.
I just care about the product itself, and only then to a certain extent.
And yet you thought you would share your profound disinterest with us. Thank you.
I'm sure those who do care will take careful consideration of your opinion and evaluate their decisions accordingly.
The fact that you have what amounts to a Walmart palette when it comes to film is your own issue. Perhaps there are things where not having a small group collude to restrict the range of goods you can choose is something you care about. Maybe you've elevated 'don't care' to a Zen-like lack of attachment. Truly your enlightenment humbles me.
That films are being produced by a small subset of those who want to reduces choice and competition in the market. Even if you choose a hamburger every meal, some people like a more varied diet and think that not addressing systematic biases in industry is limiting to the individuals who want to work in that industry and to the rest of the community as a whole.
But why am I wasting my time. You don't care. And this is most certainly about you.
in one of the most progressive countries in the world
You're number 20 on this list and the number of first world countries you're ahead of isn't that high.
That you believe what you typed is one of the problem with systematic biases. They are hard to identify and confronting when they are.
Here's a study that takes a stab at 'why'. It's a small sample, but among other factors female directors who have been successful on short films find it harder to attract funding or investment in feature films.
Here's a list of successful female directors talking about the problems they have experienced based solely on gender.
I've found those from a quick google search and memory of some similar articles. You raise mechanics, but a similar search shows females interested in being a mechanic facing even more overt cultural pressure to not. You imply that maybe women don't want to be directors, but a trivial search shows considerable evidence that counters this.
Culture is self re-inforcing. Biases are hard to identify. There's a massive difference in gender among feature film directors. There's a marked difference in the usual path of successful directors (from short films and documentaries, to longer, feature films) based on gender. Small wonder that this means that less females choose a path where an equal amount of work does not result in an equal outcome, or have to have a backup plan for when they can't pick up funding or have to spend another decade getting 'experience' that their male colleagues don't seem to need.
Here's a report that looks at female directors and compares their careers to male directors. One of the differences they report is that directors will often start with short films before moving on to longer or feature films. The initial disparity in numbers between male and female directors at the short film level then becomes even more stark. Female directors report difficulty in finding or attracting funding (not the only problem, sample size is small and selective). We're not talking about a situation where women don't want to become directors of feature films. They do. They can't. Your mechanic analogy is off the mark.
The problem with cultures is that they tend to be self-reinforcing. Women, knowing that their chance of being able to make a career beyond short film will make less of an effort in a direction that's unlikely to yield results. When putting together people to work on or with, people are likely to ask for people that they have worked with before and who they know they can work with, again.
It's complicated and complex, as many social structures are. Identifying biases are difficult and confronting. The numbers, alone, are a sign that there is _likely_ to be some kind of systematic bias or biases. Holding your hands over your ears and demanding proof before you'll act is childish. Let's investigate. There's smoke; maybe there's a fire. Maybe we'll find that it's just weird, but women really don't want to direct, but here's a list of qualified female directors talking about some of the different ways that they've experienced barriers to their careers based solely on gender.
Does your life improve the more people around you suffer?
No, nor did I state that. Did you read the post that started this? It was comparative standards of living based on country.
In a static comparison, if someone is worse than I am, then I am - by definition - better. If they become worse, relatively, then I am better, relatively.
If they were the only ones that changed, then my life is unchanged, but my relationship to them has changed.
There's no causal link, nor was it implied.
you could be a sadistic person who enjoys watching other people suffer
You are reading _way_ more into this than was there.
There is certainly a problem with false arrest and conviction, and a culture that treats an arrest as though it were a conviction. None of that gets worse because there's a new vector that might point at someone. Sure, now there are people that may not have previously been brought in, and there will certainly be some people who are arrested, even convicted, on poor quality DNA 'evidence', but if the system is broken, it's going to find a scapegoat, regardless of what it relies on.
This is one more tool to differentiate between the three different suspects you are holding. This is a way to exculpate the poor bastard held for 20 years.
More information, more accurate information means a greater possibility for more accurate results.
Demand more of your police. Hold them to higher standards. Denying them better tools for fear that they won't use them well, or may abuse them leads nowhere.
You can probably manage to either replace the Airport's ease of use, or the functionality, but not both.
Custom firmware like DD-WRT on ASUS routers was what I was using up until moving to pfSense on a small atom board. The ASUS hardware was decent enough, and less eye-wateringly priced than some competitors. I still have one in use as a dumb access point.
I've seen instructions for compiling Netatalk for DD-WRT for a more complete AirPort replacement. I've used Netatalk on an Ubuntu box as a TimeMachine source which worked seamlessly, for years.
Netatalk is an open source implementation of Apple's Filing Protocol, which is what Time Machine uses. There's lots of instructions for setting this up on Linux. IIRC I had less problems with this than tracking down odd SMB settings. Worked flawlessly for years when I was using it (no Macs in the house, at the moment).
Slashdot Mirror
As others have noted, 'Edge' looks like the latest round of hype now that 'cloud' has pretty much settled down. It's an attempt to create a difference where there really isn't one.
As you say, for most people who have neither the inclination or skills to set a lot of this up for themselves, the convenience of having someone manage this for them trumps privacy, security or the sort of control that I/we might value.
Cloud is here to stay and better serves most people. There are probably more people, now, who can run their own networks and servers than there were ten years ago, but we're an ever shrinking percentage of the internet using whole.
10 years from now, some company is going to make a killing selling me a device that can do those things and not have to connect
You aren't a market. People like you (such as myself) who value that, aren't a big enough market for anyone to make a killing from us. Between first-to-market advantages and lower costs because of centralising those tasks, I'm not seeing how a new competitor is going to be cheaper or offer more, and absent those you don't have a competitor.
This is how Google falls
Perhaps. Established players become complacent and can be outcompeted by changes in the market. I'm just not sure that 'not connected' is going to be that watershed.
Then you end up with a kind of captive population that has to work meaningless jobs with no time to look for work or train/educate themselves to find employment in a new field once their old field disappeared either from automation or outsourcing. They compete with the bottom end of the working pool, people for whom a relatively low-skilled job is all they are capable of. If the government is the employer, the govt. compete with private industry that previously provided the services that the government is now providing with their discounted labour.
Additionally, workers in these programs are at risk of losing their access to welfare (which is supposed to be a kind of social safety net) and so dare not report workplace violations of safety, for example.
If the program is voluntary, but has perks like welfare + amount; if there is a real prospect of either improving one's chance of future employment (education, experience and/training training) and if the structure of the program doesn't negatively impact either businesses or workers at the low end of the skill/pay scale, then maybe. Getting all that to line up is non-trivial. Australia has something like this, in intent, but it has problems in practice. Ref Work for the Dole and then reports like this which cite things like the safety issue and fear by people in the program of making complaints or reports.
we've even heard of spammers being murdered on the street and it didn't stop more spammers from coming up to take their place
I'm not sure that this solution has been properly and thoroughly tested, and I don't think, in good conscience and out of respect for the scientific principle that we can dismiss it so casually until we have more evidence.
Personally I'm a fan of a Lex Talionis type solution, where for every piece of Spam (unsolicted commercial email) sent, the sender must recieve (eat) one 'piece' of Spam (spiced ham). In one sitting. I'm happy for piece to be set at 1g. Small time offenders should survive that. And be suitable chastened.
I lean left enough that I've been called socialist, but this is nonsense.
The popular masses have long desired an independent new society in which all of them live well on an equal footing free from exploitation, oppression, domination and subordination.
That you call people 'the masses' gives a pretty clear insight into how you view people; that there's a line and that you're on one side and 'they' are on another.
The 'masses' are people. Some want change, others really don't. Most want to be safe and well fed, free, as you say from exploitation and oppression but while some may certainly wish for equality for all, others are just as keen on being above other people.
Socialism makes it possible to realize such an ideal and capitalism tramples it down.
Like so many things, the poison is in the dose. Both are toxic in extremum; both have strengths and benefits as well as weaknesses.
Socialism provides genuine freedom and equality for all people.
The same kind of simplisitc and idealistic definitions can be used to justify capitalism. It's hollow rhetoric and little different to any other religion. It's an article of faith that denies anything that contradicts its axioms.
In the capitalist society complete equality cannot be provided as it is based on individualism
Complete equality cannot be provided, period. It's a direction, not a destination. Confusing the two leads to some truly horrible consequences.
and it is the law of human history to advance toward socialism
It is equally true that it is a law of human history to advance towards capitalism. Maintaining a balance and tension between the two is a reflection of the balance between co-operation and competition that is inherent to all social species. Thinking that one is greater or better than the other, overall, is like declaring that your right side is better than your left.
Transition from capitalism to socialism is a law-governed process of the development of human society.
'Law' is a social construct. It can be good or bad, oppressive or the expressed will of the people. All you are saying is that it's organised. Their have been _genocides_ that were law-governed. This is a hollow piece of rhetoric devoid of any meaning while trying to appear to be a claim of moral superiority. If you belive this, I pity you. If you are parroting this, then you're a useful fool.
Socialism is an inevitable phase in the development of history and it is a rule, but it does not come true of itself.
All true of capitalism. This is like a horoscope. Statements that appear to be meaningful but which are so vague and broadly defined that they are trivially obvious.
Socialism advances amid a fierce struggle against all hues of counter-revolutionary forces including the imperialists.
Power accumulates until the inequality exceeds the tolerance of those oppressed. Imperialism is sometimes opposed by socialism, sometimes by capitalism (look at the beginnings of the French Revolution, where it was the rising merchant class that began to protest the power of the aristocracy, allied with the workers against a common 'foe'). Sadly, each revolution simply transfers power from one group to another. The initial success of the revolution is in the relaxation and reversal of the accumulation of power, but rather than recognising that, a new group steps in to try to accumulate power to themselves. Socialists will claim it's for 'everyone' but if you really want to oppose centralised power, you need to find some way to make anarchism scale and stable - I'd kind of hoped that ubiquitous communication tech might make that possible, but it won't in my generation. Otherwise the best you can hope for is a kind of cyclic oscillation between accumulation and relaxation. Or revolution. I'll
Hydrogen is not a fuel in the sense that petrol is.
It's an energy transport medium that has a 'fuel' stage so that existing infrastructure (esp. businesses) can adapt rather than being replaced.
Coal, gas, solar, hydro etc. are the energy source for hydrogen, same as for batteries. Better energy density might be possible with hydrogen fuel cells, but tying them to the existing fuel delivery process is an advantage for the incumbents only.
Uh, Shakespeare is Western culture. It's not universal.
I have no idea what this is responding to. I answered a question about why someone should write an essay on Shakespeare.
Shakespeare's works are important and influential elements of English speaking culture and hence to a lesser degree Western culture more generally. Understanding that is a useful element of a broad education.
universities
Which universities? All? Some? A hand-wave?
are ridding themselves
I think that there is a need for both conservative (in a literal resisting change meaning of the word) and progresive/reactionary (advocating change) tensions within society. Exaggerating the change you object to without reason or even argument is hollow and essentially meaningless.
of in favor of hard left literature
OMG, universities are left-leaning. News at 11. Probable conservative labeling anything that isn't conservative as 'hard left'. More mock surprise.
The sooner dead white European males are banished from the canon, the better, amirite?
No. Not 'rite'. But perhaps you've been comfortable so long that any change is terrifying.
We're moving a little away from the essay = good/bad, but with respect to Shakespeare;
Whether you like Shakespeare or not, or are even just ambivalent, his work is incredibly influential on the English speaking culture. Being exposed to that, having at least an understanding if not interest or appreciation helps to create a more rounded education.
More, exposing yourself to things you don't particularly like on a regular basis helps stop the shrinking of the comfort zone over time. I'm not talking about doing things you actively dislike, but if you only do those things you are good at, or engage in those things you like, the list of both dwindles over time and your ability to deal with new situations atrophies.
Interested people are interesting. People who challenge themselves on a regular basis retain the ability to deal with new or less-than-comfortable situations. Broadly educated people bring insight and out-of-the-box ideas to even their main fields of interest.
To quote Heinlein 'specialisation is for insects.'
Ah, the victim blaming defence.
When seen through a lens of pure fiscal return, universities don't offer good value (in your opinion) therefore breaking the rules is justified.
I served my time and got my degree.
And I can see it was worth every cent you paid.
My comment was about the utility of essay writing as a means of learning and then demonstrating an ability to organise and express ideas.
You introduced Shakespeare, attributed it to me and then made a non-sequiter about the utility of your code versus Shakespeare's work.
I rather think you've proved my point for me.
Essays are a way of demonstrating an ability to organise your thoughts and present them in a cogent and organised fashion.
That you missed the principle behind the examples doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
so why should they force me to write essays on "Shakespeare and the Semicolon"
Because we're only a step or two away from a plains ape and have trouble forming personal connections with more than about 200-300 people. We've some biological wiring that gets worked up about 'other' and 'outsider'. Shared culture helps. It teaches or reminds us of the values that we share. It means that if I meet someone from someplace I've never been, that I can make some assumptions about how they will act and behave based on shared values. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.
You don't have to look at the elements that are important in building or defining that culture. You can pick most of it up second hand, so to speak, but living in and among people who have been shaped by exposure to those elements, but when the aim of education in more than just learning a skill, but is also about producing members of society who are well educated, then taking at least a minor look at some of the more influential elements and how they have come to be that way is useful.
Your essay on Shakespeare isn't the equivalent of a differential equation. It's closer to multiplication. It's basic, high school stuff.
Given that almost all the stories featuring those laws were about exceptions or problems with the laws, I got the impression that the overarching message was that simplistic expressions of morality and/or ethics is _hard_ and likely to cause more problems than it solves.
It's been a long while since I read Asimov, so I may be adding later commentary to my recollection.
Just as 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint (joking) so too Asimov's laws (more seriously).
If by 'in control' you mean their lives are dependent on a) being attractive (for various cultural and historic values of 'attractive') enough to attract a successful mate and b) getting (usually) one shot at making a decision that will tie her success to that of the selected mate. Better pick well.
I hear all the time about the patriarchy. It does not exist.
You make a compelling argument. Your list of reasons, supported as they are by references and data has convinced me. Bravo.
Feminists may say that women want wimpy, obsequious men
Straw man. Talked to a feminist, recently?
The only thing that ultimately matters is who women who reproduce choose to reproduce with,
Simplistic understanding of the influence of non-reproducing adults on behaviour of offspring of reproducing adults. See 'gay uncle benefit' for eg.
they want competitive, successful alpha males
Weird, right? It's almost like the environmental drives that gave rise to a successful behaviour isn't as useful once we stopped being nomadic hunters and isolated tribal villagers and now live in complex social environments where treating every non-family male as a threat isn't as useful as it once once was.
There's nothing stopping women from being independent film directors
Yes there is. Funding. Which is harder for women to get than men. Up to about the short film direction, male and female directors have a similar path - then female directors have a harder time getting funding.
There's a world of films between mainstream Hollywood blockbuster and self-funded, and females find greater barriers to entry than do males.
You're correct when you say people don't get the job because they are male. They don't get rejected because they aren't female. It ranges from the not-so-subtle 'I won't be directed by a female' through the, 'there's a lot of egos and males are just better at making things work' through to unconscious biases like yours that assumes that there isn't a problem because no-one's hiring males just because they are males.
The thing about all the 'work hard, wait for your chance' rhetoric is that it ignores that not all work is rewarded equally and not everyone gets the same chance.
I just care about the product itself, and only then to a certain extent.
And yet you thought you would share your profound disinterest with us. Thank you.
I'm sure those who do care will take careful consideration of your opinion and evaluate their decisions accordingly.
The fact that you have what amounts to a Walmart palette when it comes to film is your own issue. Perhaps there are things where not having a small group collude to restrict the range of goods you can choose is something you care about. Maybe you've elevated 'don't care' to a Zen-like lack of attachment. Truly your enlightenment humbles me.
That films are being produced by a small subset of those who want to reduces choice and competition in the market. Even if you choose a hamburger every meal, some people like a more varied diet and think that not addressing systematic biases in industry is limiting to the individuals who want to work in that industry and to the rest of the community as a whole.
But why am I wasting my time. You don't care. And this is most certainly about you.
well damn. thought I lost this in a browser shutdown. apologies for the double post.
In one of the most progressive industries
Sure, for old, white and male values of 'progressive'.
in one of the most progressive countries in the world
You're number 20 on this list and the number of first world countries you're ahead of isn't that high.
That you believe what you typed is one of the problem with systematic biases. They are hard to identify and confronting when they are.
Here's a study that takes a stab at 'why'. It's a small sample, but among other factors female directors who have been successful on short films find it harder to attract funding or investment in feature films.
Here's a list of successful female directors talking about the problems they have experienced based solely on gender.
I've found those from a quick google search and memory of some similar articles. You raise mechanics, but a similar search shows females interested in being a mechanic facing even more overt cultural pressure to not. You imply that maybe women don't want to be directors, but a trivial search shows considerable evidence that counters this.
Culture is self re-inforcing. Biases are hard to identify. There's a massive difference in gender among feature film directors. There's a marked difference in the usual path of successful directors (from short films and documentaries, to longer, feature films) based on gender. Small wonder that this means that less females choose a path where an equal amount of work does not result in an equal outcome, or have to have a backup plan for when they can't pick up funding or have to spend another decade getting 'experience' that their male colleagues don't seem to need.
Here's a report that looks at female directors and compares their careers to male directors. One of the differences they report is that directors will often start with short films before moving on to longer or feature films. The initial disparity in numbers between male and female directors at the short film level then becomes even more stark. Female directors report difficulty in finding or attracting funding (not the only problem, sample size is small and selective). We're not talking about a situation where women don't want to become directors of feature films. They do. They can't. Your mechanic analogy is off the mark.
The problem with cultures is that they tend to be self-reinforcing. Women, knowing that their chance of being able to make a career beyond short film will make less of an effort in a direction that's unlikely to yield results. When putting together people to work on or with, people are likely to ask for people that they have worked with before and who they know they can work with, again.
It's complicated and complex, as many social structures are. Identifying biases are difficult and confronting. The numbers, alone, are a sign that there is _likely_ to be some kind of systematic bias or biases. Holding your hands over your ears and demanding proof before you'll act is childish. Let's investigate. There's smoke; maybe there's a fire. Maybe we'll find that it's just weird, but women really don't want to direct, but here's a list of qualified female directors talking about some of the different ways that they've experienced barriers to their careers based solely on gender.
Does your life improve the more people around you suffer?
No, nor did I state that. Did you read the post that started this? It was comparative standards of living based on country.
In a static comparison, if someone is worse than I am, then I am - by definition - better.
If they become worse, relatively, then I am better, relatively.
If they were the only ones that changed, then my life is unchanged, but my relationship to them has changed.
There's no causal link, nor was it implied.
you could be a sadistic person who enjoys watching other people suffer
You are reading _way_ more into this than was there.
You're looking at this the wrong way.
There is certainly a problem with false arrest and conviction, and a culture that treats an arrest as though it were a conviction.
None of that gets worse because there's a new vector that might point at someone. Sure, now there are people that may not have previously been brought in, and there will certainly be some people who are arrested, even convicted, on poor quality DNA 'evidence', but if the system is broken, it's going to find a scapegoat, regardless of what it relies on.
This is one more tool to differentiate between the three different suspects you are holding. This is a way to exculpate the poor bastard held for 20 years.
More information, more accurate information means a greater possibility for more accurate results.
Demand more of your police. Hold them to higher standards. Denying them better tools for fear that they won't use them well, or may abuse them leads nowhere.
You can probably manage to either replace the Airport's ease of use, or the functionality, but not both.
Custom firmware like DD-WRT on ASUS routers was what I was using up until moving to pfSense on a small atom board. The ASUS hardware was decent enough, and less eye-wateringly priced than some competitors. I still have one in use as a dumb access point.
I've seen instructions for compiling Netatalk for DD-WRT for a more complete AirPort replacement. I've used Netatalk on an Ubuntu box as a TimeMachine source which worked seamlessly, for years.
But this fails, hard, on ease of use.
Netatalk is an open source implementation of Apple's Filing Protocol, which is what Time Machine uses.
There's lots of instructions for setting this up on Linux. IIRC I had less problems with this than tracking down odd SMB settings.
Worked flawlessly for years when I was using it (no Macs in the house, at the moment).
Just because someone has it worse than you, doesn't mean you have it any better
Er, what? By definition it does. Literally, in the literal sense of 'literally'.
Your quality of life is an _objective_ thing. It's not subjective.
Did you mean that the other way around?
Not your best post.