men and women do that a lot. It's not difficult because they exercise different parts of the brain, where one task is theoretical and abstract while the other is immediate and tactically predictable. tetris doesn't require much theoretical or abstract thought, while yacking about relationships is not. It's like listening to music while driving vs having a conversation while driving..
Hey, there's nothing wrong with bashing jokes.. In fact, it's a healthy way of getting the truth out there. Women do it to men all the time.. Just watch 5 minutes of TV, commercials or content, or listen to one of the many pop diva tunes made in the last 30 years. There's plenty of man bashing out there. There's also plenty of it in the law and education, which is where it really hurts men. I have a problem that men are being told to hush while women run around saying/doing whatever/whoever they want and then blaming men and holding them responsible for their own choices. If I was to do what feminists want and take their mindset as the mindset of all women, I would have to assume that women just don't understand what empowerment is truly about.. They get the benefit part, but not the responsibility, like children...and yes, part of this includes being able to take what one dishes out when dirty jokes are being handed around.
Then there are those who run around said forums claiming the users are 'entitled jerks' because they have opinions that dare to differ from 'ogle-eyed worship' of said product/company/technology. pure fallacious shaming tactics at work...
(Also, all these people claim their friends and family rely on them for technical advice, even though that is clearly no longer necessary.)
The fact that these 'neo-friendly' devices are less serviceable makes them even harder to fix when their limited interfaces won't do what the idiot user wants. Guess who gets asked to 'make it work'? These devices are actually customer toxic.. They're increasingly designed to maximize profits on services rather than do what they're advertised as doing: serve the owner.
There's almost no stigma these days, not when 2/3 of university level graduating classes are female. most of the 'stigma' is imagined by feminist political groups like NOW who want everyone thinking there is. That way women will get the benefits of having the upper and has well as the benefits of having the (assumed) lower hand. It's dirty politics. Women themselves aren't that interested in tech. Women were never into the tools of the trade because the men did those things.. Women do other things, and when it came time to use a tool, it was to get something done and move on. The process is rarely important to them unless it breaks. Then it's time to call a man (usually) to come fix it.
This doesn't mean the slashdot population is wrong. The question you should be asking is "important to whom and why?" Technically incompetent consumers are more dependent and thus more profitable to companies. This article sources someone who probably has political motivations for saying the things she said, as well as being motivated by her employer (intel). In the end, the slashdot crowd is much more in line with the interests of these consumers than those who want to bilk money from them. the latter love seeing fluff articles like this.
You're right, she was his principle source though: "The body of evidence amassed by Intel researcher Genevieve Bell indisputably shows that men's role in technology adoption continues to be overstated."
Which is really silly as communism is still very much a theoretical concept, and socialism is simply "taking care of your own" economy expanded on the entire community. But since it is spread over the entire community it is no longer nepotism but humanism.
No, it is not simply that. The devil's in the details.. In other words, on whose definitions is society supposed to operate on? Who takes the hit when the social ideology (whatever it is) conflicts with reality? Too often, it is the working class at the bottom that does, despite many socialist countries claiming to be 'workers' paradise.'
On the other hand, capitalism has always been fundamentally flawed. It's great at pushing the making of more widgets faster and cheaper - but that's about it. It completely fails to grasp any immaterial human-benefiting concept such as "happiness" or even rather material concepts such as "well being".
All it deals with is more, faster, cheaper.
Capitalism and socialism are not polar opposites.. The former is an economic system, and the latter, a structure for governmental power. Socialism runs amok because it assumes any failure in the society is due to insufficient amounts of centralization. Socialism on paper claims to be about societal ownership of production, but it ends up being about control of production and its wealth by political autocrats. This is worse than capitalism because when these shrubs screw up, they can lean on the backs of the workers to finance the recovery. Here in the states, we have the worst combination of socialism and capitalism: we have the state bailing out failing corporate leadership.
And capitalism sucks at trying to deal with immaterial. Just look at patent system, music industry and anything else dealing with "intellectual property". All the nonsense happening there is a product of a system used to dealing with physical, material, scarce things - now having to deal with immaterial things which spread and multiply on their own with each contact with a human. You know... Ideas. Information.
I agree here. However, in order for 'intellectual property' to work, a huge governmental influence is required. Basically, these things are false scarcity, something capitalism keeps in check. Without socialism, businessmen are welcome to build bridges leading nowhere all they want, but people will just bypass them.
The sooner that is accepted the better off we're all going to be. Cause right now, some are desperately trying to hammer a negative liberty [wikipedia.org] system like capitalism, onto a positive liberty [wikipedia.org] society we are trying to be. Socialism is a little better at it, cause in it everyone essentially trades in some negative liberty so that everyone could have a chance to achieve positive liberty.
Socialism is anything but a positive liberty system. It demands one hand over the fruits of his labors to the state for redistribution. In return, in theory, it gives individuals just what they need when they need it, but wants are irrelevant. It requires a heavy handed bureaucracy and surveillance in order to function at all because individuals well resist this cog-in-a-machine existence. Eventually, those in charge don't want to give up grabbing ever more control, making the government ever more top heavy until it collapses the economy. This is what happened to the soviet union, and china isn't exactly a place I'd like to work.
So, you must either trick them OR limit their negative liberty further and MAKE them seek positive liberty for themselves. Somewhere on that scale, there is a point where most people in a society have all their material needs satisfied and are dedicated to achieving their full potential. Just around a corner from that point starts the slippery slope towards a totalitarian society where everyone MUST achieve their full potential for the glory of the society.
Once you 'make' them, then liberty is dead. Forcing those who have to give to those who don't will NOT motivate either the haves or have-nots to work harder.
not at all. I don't mind someone praising microsoft. if they've done something right, I'll agree. if not, I won't. discussion follows.
His opinion about visual studio is tangential to the topic, which is what comes with the express edition. The way he expresses his opinion read to me like astroturf marketing...the emphasis on 'like'. I don't know if it is or not.
I don't consider myself especially dextrous, physically, but I really don't think a start menu is difficult to navigate.. Search, is A LOT slower and more disruptive to work flow when you already know where something is. The metro menu is even slower than both! There's no reason why microsoft can't offer both a traditional windows desktop and this metro thing with a control panel switch.
I find clicking twice faster than typing 'word' and hoping the heuristics guess right.. I've found that sometimes it doesn't. It depends on what was installed on the machine. Also, often used applications go in the quicklaunch, and that is faster than the start menu. A stock start menu is clunky, yes, but it works A LOT better than full screens of tiles to scroll through, and if a minute is taken to organize it, there's no contest.
The point is, there's no reason to block someone's view of his work area unless it's absolutely necessary. At the very least, it's visually disruptive, and in my case, I can load things without taking my central vision off what's in front of me. I've grown used to this ability, and losing it for the sake of a poorly grafted interface meant for input constrained devices is a net loss.
I don't know why turkeyfeathers was modded down.. he's right. the hierarchy is useful, and it can be easily sorted by alpha if necessary.. the current full screen tiled mess isn't, and having to scroll it horizontally just makes things worse. Starting an application should not be a disruptive 'experience.' It negatively affects workflow by unnecessarily stopping information flow to the user from already open windows.
well whatever, most kids are just going find whatever will run on their hardware.. if they run windows, they'll grab vs express.. if express won't do what they want, they'll torrent.. or they might try win32-gcc with another ide..
Yes, but unfortunately the basis is flawed. argumentum ad populum - everyone is saying this, therefore it must be true/you must comply. Building alliances on such fallacious reasoning is probably one of the primal causes of conflict and mass social failure.
Yeah it would be great, except that instead of extending themselves to what was built (by 'geeks'), they want/are getting it dumbed down to their level by force of ubiquity and/or profit motive.. This is an example of why some think the movie Idiocracy should be considered a piece of speculative fiction.
...or that women need more healthcare and devices to compensate for less ability to deal with the environment around them. The implication being that men don't need as much healthcare, or that they're better able to find their way without a moronic computer telling them what to do. See I can speculate too. If gossip is going to fuel internet growth, all of us should just quit using it now.. gossip is among the most toxic of fallout from human evolution to date.
This article and your post are both yet more examples of misandric garbage being passed off as science... the article written by a corporate 'empowered' woman of course, and who knows what your interest is, but I doubt it's as altruistic as you want the reader to believe. How many people here would believe an article written by a male saying that men are the be-all end all?
It's not about offense.. it's about these ignorant people demanding that us geeks dumb things down to their level even when it's not really possible to do without sacrificing functionality that we need. There's nothing wrong with ignorance btw, because it implies that one could still want to learn. WILLFUL ignorance however, is THE issue of this society's problems today.
Being part of a dominant consumer group is NOT the same thing as being tech-relevant, or even important in terms of trending new innovations. See, in order to innovate, there needs to be a group of people who are willing to take on early adoption. This is key... most of this is done by men. As to why, I could only guess that, but my limited understanding of psychology tells me that men are the ones who are more willing to take risks to differentiate and gain advantage. Read the list in the article.. all of those things had been used by men long before they were mainstream...ie when they were initially adopted for use. This piece is just an attempt at proving some sort of gynocentric ego.
On top of that, women tend to more productive, even if they play Farmville during work time. Men do the same - they just play some other games, watch porn or talk about sports with their colleagues. On IT field it has been discovered that women's ability to multitask is a significant bonus. Men can only concentrate on one thing at a time. If something else happens, they get distracted. This is why you sometimes see people complaining about instant messages and emails during work - they cannot multitask.
unbiased citation needed, from a study not run by people with huge political conflicts of interest. This is one of those memes that is a load of rubbish. It needs to die. BOTH genders have trouble 'multitasking'.. just ask anyone who's seen a woman driving an SUV while chatting on the cellphone.
newer is not always better. in fact, financial desperation in these times is driving needless change in products in areas that don't need change, often to their detriment.
This will bring up the desktop, but it won't solve the full screen problem when starting new applications. anyway, why should users have to kludge the kludge to unkludge the kludge on a $200 piece of software?
Those of us that have more than three or four pieces of software installed do. Scrolling a huge fullscreen pile of tiles is a lot more time consuming than scrolling through a well organized start menu or using a quicklaunch link. The fact I can start a new application from it without losing sight of my desktop is something I"ve come to expect from computer use over the last FIFTEEN years..
so what's your answer? socialism? that can be just as cruel. despite everyone's bandwagoneering of the ideology, it's quite possible, maybe even easier to build, a draconian society with it. I think the issue is a lot larger than any single ideology or economic system.
Slashdot Mirror
men and women do that a lot. It's not difficult because they exercise different parts of the brain, where one task is theoretical and abstract while the other is immediate and tactically predictable. tetris doesn't require much theoretical or abstract thought, while yacking about relationships is not. It's like listening to music while driving vs having a conversation while driving..
Hey, there's nothing wrong with bashing jokes.. In fact, it's a healthy way of getting the truth out there. Women do it to men all the time.. Just watch 5 minutes of TV, commercials or content, or listen to one of the many pop diva tunes made in the last 30 years. There's plenty of man bashing out there. There's also plenty of it in the law and education, which is where it really hurts men. I have a problem that men are being told to hush while women run around saying/doing whatever/whoever they want and then blaming men and holding them responsible for their own choices. If I was to do what feminists want and take their mindset as the mindset of all women, I would have to assume that women just don't understand what empowerment is truly about.. They get the benefit part, but not the responsibility, like children...and yes, part of this includes being able to take what one dishes out when dirty jokes are being handed around.
Then there are those who run around said forums claiming the users are 'entitled jerks' because they have opinions that dare to differ from 'ogle-eyed worship' of said product/company/technology. pure fallacious shaming tactics at work...
(Also, all these people claim their friends and family rely on them for technical advice, even though that is clearly no longer necessary.)
The fact that these 'neo-friendly' devices are less serviceable makes them even harder to fix when their limited interfaces won't do what the idiot user wants. Guess who gets asked to 'make it work'? These devices are actually customer toxic.. They're increasingly designed to maximize profits on services rather than do what they're advertised as doing: serve the owner.
There's almost no stigma these days, not when 2/3 of university level graduating classes are female. most of the 'stigma' is imagined by feminist political groups like NOW who want everyone thinking there is. That way women will get the benefits of having the upper and has well as the benefits of having the (assumed) lower hand. It's dirty politics. Women themselves aren't that interested in tech. Women were never into the tools of the trade because the men did those things.. Women do other things, and when it came time to use a tool, it was to get something done and move on. The process is rarely important to them unless it breaks. Then it's time to call a man (usually) to come fix it.
This doesn't mean the slashdot population is wrong. The question you should be asking is "important to whom and why?" Technically incompetent consumers are more dependent and thus more profitable to companies. This article sources someone who probably has political motivations for saying the things she said, as well as being motivated by her employer (intel). In the end, the slashdot crowd is much more in line with the interests of these consumers than those who want to bilk money from them. the latter love seeing fluff articles like this.
You're right, she was his principle source though: "The body of evidence amassed by Intel researcher Genevieve Bell indisputably shows that men's role in technology adoption continues to be overstated."
Which is really silly as communism is still very much a theoretical concept, and socialism is simply "taking care of your own" economy expanded on the entire community.
But since it is spread over the entire community it is no longer nepotism but humanism.
No, it is not simply that. The devil's in the details.. In other words, on whose definitions is society supposed to operate on? Who takes the hit when the social ideology (whatever it is) conflicts with reality? Too often, it is the working class at the bottom that does, despite many socialist countries claiming to be 'workers' paradise.'
On the other hand, capitalism has always been fundamentally flawed.
It's great at pushing the making of more widgets faster and cheaper - but that's about it.
It completely fails to grasp any immaterial human-benefiting concept such as "happiness" or even rather material concepts such as "well being".
All it deals with is more, faster, cheaper.
Capitalism and socialism are not polar opposites.. The former is an economic system, and the latter, a structure for governmental power. Socialism runs amok because it assumes any failure in the society is due to insufficient amounts of centralization. Socialism on paper claims to be about societal ownership of production, but it ends up being about control of production and its wealth by political autocrats. This is worse than capitalism because when these shrubs screw up, they can lean on the backs of the workers to finance the recovery. Here in the states, we have the worst combination of socialism and capitalism: we have the state bailing out failing corporate leadership.
And capitalism sucks at trying to deal with immaterial.
Just look at patent system, music industry and anything else dealing with "intellectual property".
All the nonsense happening there is a product of a system used to dealing with physical, material, scarce things - now having to deal with immaterial things which spread and multiply on their own with each contact with a human.
You know... Ideas. Information.
I agree here. However, in order for 'intellectual property' to work, a huge governmental influence is required. Basically, these things are false scarcity, something capitalism keeps in check. Without socialism, businessmen are welcome to build bridges leading nowhere all they want, but people will just bypass them.
The sooner that is accepted the better off we're all going to be.
Cause right now, some are desperately trying to hammer a negative liberty [wikipedia.org] system like capitalism, onto a positive liberty [wikipedia.org] society we are trying to be.
Socialism is a little better at it, cause in it everyone essentially trades in some negative liberty so that everyone could have a chance to achieve positive liberty.
Socialism is anything but a positive liberty system. It demands one hand over the fruits of his labors to the state for redistribution. In return, in theory, it gives individuals just what they need when they need it, but wants are irrelevant. It requires a heavy handed bureaucracy and surveillance in order to function at all because individuals well resist this cog-in-a-machine existence. Eventually, those in charge don't want to give up grabbing ever more control, making the government ever more top heavy until it collapses the economy. This is what happened to the soviet union, and china isn't exactly a place I'd like to work.
So, you must either trick them OR limit their negative liberty further and MAKE them seek positive liberty for themselves.
Somewhere on that scale, there is a point where most people in a society have all their material needs satisfied and are dedicated to achieving their full potential.
Just around a corner from that point starts the slippery slope towards a totalitarian society where everyone MUST achieve their full potential for the glory of the society.
Once you 'make' them, then liberty is dead. Forcing those who have to give to those who don't will NOT motivate either the haves or have-nots to work harder.
not at all. I don't mind someone praising microsoft. if they've done something right, I'll agree. if not, I won't. discussion follows.
His opinion about visual studio is tangential to the topic, which is what comes with the express edition. The way he expresses his opinion read to me like astroturf marketing...the emphasis on 'like'. I don't know if it is or not.
I don't consider myself especially dextrous, physically, but I really don't think a start menu is difficult to navigate.. Search, is A LOT slower and more disruptive to work flow when you already know where something is. The metro menu is even slower than both! There's no reason why microsoft can't offer both a traditional windows desktop and this metro thing with a control panel switch.
I find clicking twice faster than typing 'word' and hoping the heuristics guess right.. I've found that sometimes it doesn't. It depends on what was installed on the machine. Also, often used applications go in the quicklaunch, and that is faster than the start menu. A stock start menu is clunky, yes, but it works A LOT better than full screens of tiles to scroll through, and if a minute is taken to organize it, there's no contest.
The point is, there's no reason to block someone's view of his work area unless it's absolutely necessary. At the very least, it's visually disruptive, and in my case, I can load things without taking my central vision off what's in front of me. I've grown used to this ability, and losing it for the sake of a poorly grafted interface meant for input constrained devices is a net loss.
I don't know why turkeyfeathers was modded down.. he's right. the hierarchy is useful, and it can be easily sorted by alpha if necessary.. the current full screen tiled mess isn't, and having to scroll it horizontally just makes things worse. Starting an application should not be a disruptive 'experience.' It negatively affects workflow by unnecessarily stopping information flow to the user from already open windows.
well whatever, most kids are just going find whatever will run on their hardware.. if they run windows, they'll grab vs express.. if express won't do what they want, they'll torrent.. or they might try win32-gcc with another ide..
Yes, but unfortunately the basis is flawed. argumentum ad populum - everyone is saying this, therefore it must be true/you must comply. Building alliances on such fallacious reasoning is probably one of the primal causes of conflict and mass social failure.
Yeah it would be great, except that instead of extending themselves to what was built (by 'geeks'), they want/are getting it dumbed down to their level by force of ubiquity and/or profit motive.. This is an example of why some think the movie Idiocracy should be considered a piece of speculative fiction.
maybe when they're 18+ and going to university.. when they're still in highschool, they're either using free stuff or pirating..
I'm explaining why.. I'm justifying nothing.
I mean the 'start menu' taking the full screen whenever it's accessed, instead of a small rectangle in the corner of the still-visible desktop.
...or that women need more healthcare and devices to compensate for less ability to deal with the environment around them. The implication being that men don't need as much healthcare, or that they're better able to find their way without a moronic computer telling them what to do. See I can speculate too. If gossip is going to fuel internet growth, all of us should just quit using it now.. gossip is among the most toxic of fallout from human evolution to date.
This article and your post are both yet more examples of misandric garbage being passed off as science... the article written by a corporate 'empowered' woman of course, and who knows what your interest is, but I doubt it's as altruistic as you want the reader to believe. How many people here would believe an article written by a male saying that men are the be-all end all?
It's not about offense.. it's about these ignorant people demanding that us geeks dumb things down to their level even when it's not really possible to do without sacrificing functionality that we need. There's nothing wrong with ignorance btw, because it implies that one could still want to learn. WILLFUL ignorance however, is THE issue of this society's problems today.
Being part of a dominant consumer group is NOT the same thing as being tech-relevant, or even important in terms of trending new innovations. See, in order to innovate, there needs to be a group of people who are willing to take on early adoption. This is key... most of this is done by men. As to why, I could only guess that, but my limited understanding of psychology tells me that men are the ones who are more willing to take risks to differentiate and gain advantage. Read the list in the article.. all of those things had been used by men long before they were mainstream...ie when they were initially adopted for use. This piece is just an attempt at proving some sort of gynocentric ego.
On top of that, women tend to more productive, even if they play Farmville during work time. Men do the same - they just play some other games, watch porn or talk about sports with their colleagues. On IT field it has been discovered that women's ability to multitask is a significant bonus. Men can only concentrate on one thing at a time. If something else happens, they get distracted. This is why you sometimes see people complaining about instant messages and emails during work - they cannot multitask.
unbiased citation needed, from a study not run by people with huge political conflicts of interest. This is one of those memes that is a load of rubbish. It needs to die. BOTH genders have trouble 'multitasking'.. just ask anyone who's seen a woman driving an SUV while chatting on the cellphone.
newer is not always better. in fact, financial desperation in these times is driving needless change in products in areas that don't need change, often to their detriment.
This will bring up the desktop, but it won't solve the full screen problem when starting new applications. anyway, why should users have to kludge the kludge to unkludge the kludge on a $200 piece of software?
Those of us that have more than three or four pieces of software installed do. Scrolling a huge fullscreen pile of tiles is a lot more time consuming than scrolling through a well organized start menu or using a quicklaunch link. The fact I can start a new application from it without losing sight of my desktop is something I"ve come to expect from computer use over the last FIFTEEN years..
This reads like astroturf. People are actually complaining because the free new version is less capable than the old free versions to date.
Yes. relenting to a bunch of bastards who don't want to buy the full version sure is a start.
Most teenagers don't have $500 to blow on visual studio.
Now if we can just get rid of you clowns who hate change.
Fallacy.
so what's your answer? socialism? that can be just as cruel. despite everyone's bandwagoneering of the ideology, it's quite possible, maybe even easier to build, a draconian society with it. I think the issue is a lot larger than any single ideology or economic system.