professional level crts do wear more quickly because the demands on them are higher.. if you get 10 years out of one, that's pretty good (assuming daily use). yes, they can be recalibrated, but eventually a tube replacement is in order. since no one makes the tubes anymore..
making higher resolutions just about useless for those of us who want more desktop real estate... why would anyone want a desktop os to function like a media center pc?
too big.. I want 2560x1600 at ~24inches, 120hz (real 120hz), 30 bit color, no filtered scaling for even multiple resolutions, and no input lag,. when this happens, then crt is officially dead.
Feminists should be the ones checking into that. if the genders and relevant insults were reversed on those tv ads and programs, you can bet feminists would have something to say about it. The quickest way to kill the legitimacy of a moral claim is to engage in blatant hypocritical behavior. Feminists, at least these days, do that in spades, while society cheers them on.
throwing around think tank studies as 'science' is questionable at best. by all means, read it to see what's there, but I wouldn't take it as the last word. I read through the 'study' you posted, (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf), and it's just a regurgitation of other papers on the subject written by a variety of known feminists and progressives. if I'm to take something someone says at face value, there can't be a litany of self-serving emotional reasons for the statement. it's little better than a christian stating "god made the earth because the bible says so right here, EOD."
#1 you whine about bias yet you position the feminist as the only rational, objective viewpoint like they're incapable of lying/manipulating for social advantage? this is rather naive.
#2. me? no, I'm not the one defending institutionalized discrimination as a solution for..uh...claimed discrimination.
I think it's more to do with a lack of a strong, confident, rational father figure growing up than a sexual fetish.. if anything, a growth in such fetishes might be a reasonable result of today's softening male archetype.
Really? You don't see that? Granted, things have gotten dramatically better than even 15-20 years ago. But it's still trivial to see disparities in the media. Just one item: what's the shelf-life of a female actress? As opposed to that of a male actor? The entire point of the existence of feminism is to point out the situations where the established patriarchy is so blinded by history and habit that it just doesn't understand the problem.
of course, feminists don't stoop so low as to take action in 'end-justifies-hypocritical-means' discrimination towards males, right? *cough*
I dont' know what media you read/watch/listen to, but the stuff I'm exposed to is almost absurdly pro female. Men are ridiculed, dumped on, stereotyped, sexually abused (kicked in the balls/slapped), depicted as pedophiles, rapists, idiots, etc for their traits in almost every TV show and commercial. these roleplay situations wouldn't be so bad if women weren't curiously exempt from all that when the person dishing out the verbal/physical attack is male (the only time not is when it's time to show the male as 'wrong' again).. in fact even when males are shown in traditional roles, they cannot be without a gaggle of females undermining their authority, masculinity, and confidence at every turn. In contrast, you rarely if ever see a woman treated this way.. In news coverage, if a woman gets hurt or killed doing her job, suddenly the story deserves weeklong coverage, otherwise it's over and done with in 2 minutes. If a woman is mutilated sexually, it gets national coverage as a serious crime... if a man is sexually mutilated, it gets national coverage...by comedians and (all female usually) morning talk shows where the guy is ridiculed for being literally emasculated. Of course, this is no surprise most of the writers and editors nowadays are female (most communications major graduates are female and have been for quite some time, the others being feminist doormat males). so much for women having the better character..
I find it ironic that women are the ones claiming men are simple, stupid, and easy to understand and that women are 'spiritually more enlightened' complex little snowflakes, but yet their depictions of men in the media they produce suggest a very neanderthal, childlike caricature at best, and to this male anyway, highly inaccurate.
read that from the womens' studies 101 textbook did we?
#1. If it was ever true, it was 60 years ago. Today, the situation is quite different.. Feminism, today, is about lobbying government to give women artificial default advantages because they're women, not because they want the chance to be judged by existing, relevant standards to earn $whatever, whether it be better placement in school, employment compensation, or family court. It's interesting how quickly 'my body my right' becomes 'he got me pregnant' when it's time to pay for her 'isn't-life-so-wonderful-'choice'' to have the kid, knowing she doesn't have the $$$.
#2. removing glass ceilings shouldn't also include holding more qualified men back. the women-are-victims default attitude in the culture basically forces every man (or woman if she's smart enough to sidestep her ego), to wonder if she got that promotion because she's the best, or because she's female. The glass ceiling stats are suspect anyway, because the people analyzing them want specific outcomes. If, overall, men make more than women do, it's due to the fact that men take the disproportionate number of dangerous/stressful jobs. Interestingly, recently, there was a report that women today are less happy than they were years ago. This does not surprise me as women have reached into white collar management at fortune 500s over the last 35 years, and are probably discovering that it's not the cocktail party the raging ivy league feminazis told them it was. High level officer positions at companies takes a lot of work!
#3. consensus might be interesting, but it is not, nor should be, the primary decider of any important decision. this mentality in high places is what destroys businesses, and even whole societies. if your goal is to give women the high five for this, I'd reconsider..
I suggest you quit taking queues from television commercials and sitcoms. it's one thing to analyze tv as a warped circus mirror view on the status of culture, but it's another to take it as literal truth.
This does not nullify the gp's point about the bias.. you can't claim a moral position against bigotry and then promote it against your opposition with an 'end-justifies-means' mentality and remain respectable. if you're anti sexist, you cannot discriminate against females, but you also cannot discriminate against males with some kind of default-assumed bias that women are automatically 'more repressed.'
not sure if it was you intent but it sounds like you support, for example, the view that 50% of the population should receive lower monetary reward when performing the same duties with the same efficiency as the other 50%.
no, that's not what it says.
intelligence may steer but it has been and always be emotion that drives a society.
true.. that's why so many societies have failed. maybe we should strive for a different mentality?
It's a natural result of the fact that companies mistreated female managers or prevented female employees from becoming managers for so long. Attempts to correct it have their downsides as well. Hopefully we'll get to a point where a bad manager doesn't go far, regardless of gender or race.
Not really. There is no cause effect here.. It may be the justification, but it's not rational at all. Basically people who agree with this are saying that the solution to sexism is more sexism..
He's referring to the gender double standard in the media.. ie it's ok to publish stuff on how women are 'repressed' or how men dominate, but one cannot talk about the opposites without being labeled as 'discriminatory.'
right.. it's an insecurity complex.. these women have something to prove..that they can out-men the men, and since these attitudes are what they associate with them, due to bad personal experience, indoctrination in college, or passive brainwashing by current culture, that's how they interact with employees, especially men. The irony here is that the very thing they claim they seek, confidence, is the very opposite of what they are projecting in the name of it...and some of them do it out of 'revenge', again because of their assumptions about men.
if the movement was really about equality and not gynocentric pride, they'd call themselves philanthropists (love of humans). the term 'feminist' speaks volumes about their real attitudes.
The position we should all strive for is the one that is factually correct, logically consistent and fits the problem at hand. I can guarantee that behavioral dynamics are far more complex than the article's sexist author makes them out to be. If there are correlations with gender, I'm sure they boil down to "men lead hierarchies" and "women deliberate in committees" most of the time, and that there are plenty of bitches and bastards in this world, as well as sane people. This is nothing we didn't all know already. The bias of the article shows with the terms placed as the 'positive' (democratic, interpersonal) standard by which success is judged. This bias is used throughout society in situations where feminists (or their male apologists) want to prop women up as 'equals' or in superiors-if-only-men-would-let-them scenarios.
As for me, I prefer more objective measurements in the leadership I work for, otherwise I find myself compelled to take over, even when I'm not all that interested, just to save my sanity. I work best when everyone is levelheaded and rational rather than passive-aggressive and backstabbing. The gender doesn't matter, up to the point where gender statistics start to play a significant part in whether my boss is the former or the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
lol.. there's your mistake right there. don't marry and don't buy a house..
hurd only supports 24MB.. rms is thinking about how to add support for systems with more..
professional level crts do wear more quickly because the demands on them are higher.. if you get 10 years out of one, that's pretty good (assuming daily use). yes, they can be recalibrated, but eventually a tube replacement is in order. since no one makes the tubes anymore..
making higher resolutions just about useless for those of us who want more desktop real estate... why would anyone want a desktop os to function like a media center pc?
too big.. I want 2560x1600 at ~24inches, 120hz (real 120hz), 30 bit color, no filtered scaling for even multiple resolutions, and no input lag,. when this happens, then crt is officially dead.
the reason ms is the mainstay of corporate computing is precisely because users don't have to throw out all their software investments every 2 years.
Feminists should be the ones checking into that. if the genders and relevant insults were reversed on those tv ads and programs, you can bet feminists would have something to say about it. The quickest way to kill the legitimacy of a moral claim is to engage in blatant hypocritical behavior. Feminists, at least these days, do that in spades, while society cheers them on.
throwing around think tank studies as 'science' is questionable at best. by all means, read it to see what's there, but I wouldn't take it as the last word. I read through the 'study' you posted, (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf), and it's just a regurgitation of other papers on the subject written by a variety of known feminists and progressives. if I'm to take something someone says at face value, there can't be a litany of self-serving emotional reasons for the statement. it's little better than a christian stating "god made the earth because the bible says so right here, EOD."
#1 you whine about bias yet you position the feminist as the only rational, objective viewpoint like they're incapable of lying/manipulating for social advantage? this is rather naive.
#2. me? no, I'm not the one defending institutionalized discrimination as a solution for..uh...claimed discrimination.
I think it's more to do with a lack of a strong, confident, rational father figure growing up than a sexual fetish.. if anything, a growth in such fetishes might be a reasonable result of today's softening male archetype.
Really? You don't see that? Granted, things have gotten dramatically better than even 15-20 years ago. But it's still trivial to see disparities in the media. Just one item: what's the shelf-life of a female actress? As opposed to that of a male actor? The entire point of the existence of feminism is to point out the situations where the established patriarchy is so blinded by history and habit that it just doesn't understand the problem.
of course, feminists don't stoop so low as to take action in 'end-justifies-hypocritical-means' discrimination towards males, right? *cough*
I dont' know what media you read/watch/listen to, but the stuff I'm exposed to is almost absurdly pro female. Men are ridiculed, dumped on, stereotyped, sexually abused (kicked in the balls/slapped), depicted as pedophiles, rapists, idiots, etc for their traits in almost every TV show and commercial. these roleplay situations wouldn't be so bad if women weren't curiously exempt from all that when the person dishing out the verbal/physical attack is male (the only time not is when it's time to show the male as 'wrong' again).. in fact even when males are shown in traditional roles, they cannot be without a gaggle of females undermining their authority, masculinity, and confidence at every turn. In contrast, you rarely if ever see a woman treated this way.. In news coverage, if a woman gets hurt or killed doing her job, suddenly the story deserves weeklong coverage, otherwise it's over and done with in 2 minutes. If a woman is mutilated sexually, it gets national coverage as a serious crime... if a man is sexually mutilated, it gets national coverage...by comedians and (all female usually) morning talk shows where the guy is ridiculed for being literally emasculated. Of course, this is no surprise most of the writers and editors nowadays are female (most communications major graduates are female and have been for quite some time, the others being feminist doormat males). so much for women having the better character..
I find it ironic that women are the ones claiming men are simple, stupid, and easy to understand and that women are 'spiritually more enlightened' complex little snowflakes, but yet their depictions of men in the media they produce suggest a very neanderthal, childlike caricature at best, and to this male anyway, highly inaccurate.
read that from the womens' studies 101 textbook did we?
#1. If it was ever true, it was 60 years ago. Today, the situation is quite different.. Feminism, today, is about lobbying government to give women artificial default advantages because they're women, not because they want the chance to be judged by existing, relevant standards to earn $whatever, whether it be better placement in school, employment compensation, or family court. It's interesting how quickly 'my body my right' becomes 'he got me pregnant' when it's time to pay for her 'isn't-life-so-wonderful-'choice'' to have the kid, knowing she doesn't have the $$$.
#2. removing glass ceilings shouldn't also include holding more qualified men back. the women-are-victims default attitude in the culture basically forces every man (or woman if she's smart enough to sidestep her ego), to wonder if she got that promotion because she's the best, or because she's female. The glass ceiling stats are suspect anyway, because the people analyzing them want specific outcomes. If, overall, men make more than women do, it's due to the fact that men take the disproportionate number of dangerous/stressful jobs. Interestingly, recently, there was a report that women today are less happy than they were years ago. This does not surprise me as women have reached into white collar management at fortune 500s over the last 35 years, and are probably discovering that it's not the cocktail party the raging ivy league feminazis told them it was. High level officer positions at companies takes a lot of work!
#3. consensus might be interesting, but it is not, nor should be, the primary decider of any important decision. this mentality in high places is what destroys businesses, and even whole societies. if your goal is to give women the high five for this, I'd reconsider..
I suggest you quit taking queues from television commercials and sitcoms. it's one thing to analyze tv as a warped circus mirror view on the status of culture, but it's another to take it as literal truth.
maybe, but lots of insecure guys these days do make exceptions for their own mistreatment if she's hot.
Women are more prone to use subtle manipulation over brute force, at least with North American women.
it's called passive-aggression. it's not a mark of a wise, confident leader.
This does not nullify the gp's point about the bias.. you can't claim a moral position against bigotry and then promote it against your opposition with an 'end-justifies-means' mentality and remain respectable. if you're anti sexist, you cannot discriminate against females, but you also cannot discriminate against males with some kind of default-assumed bias that women are automatically 'more repressed.'
not sure if it was you intent but it sounds like you support, for example, the view that 50% of the population should receive lower monetary reward when performing the same duties with the same efficiency as the other 50%.
no, that's not what it says.
intelligence may steer but it has been and always be emotion that drives a society.
true.. that's why so many societies have failed. maybe we should strive for a different mentality?
time to do something about that..
I'm not sure if your +5 was targeted at explicit agreement with your statement, or acknowledgement of the implied roll-eyes.
Not really. who cares if she's hot, when she's making your life miserable?
It's a natural result of the fact that companies mistreated female managers or prevented female employees from becoming managers for so long. Attempts to correct it have their downsides as well. Hopefully we'll get to a point where a bad manager doesn't go far, regardless of gender or race.
Not really. There is no cause effect here.. It may be the justification, but it's not rational at all. Basically people who agree with this are saying that the solution to sexism is more sexism..
He's referring to the gender double standard in the media.. ie it's ok to publish stuff on how women are 'repressed' or how men dominate, but one cannot talk about the opposites without being labeled as 'discriminatory.'
right.. it's an insecurity complex.. these women have something to prove..that they can out-men the men, and since these attitudes are what they associate with them, due to bad personal experience, indoctrination in college, or passive brainwashing by current culture, that's how they interact with employees, especially men. The irony here is that the very thing they claim they seek, confidence, is the very opposite of what they are projecting in the name of it. ..and some of them do it out of 'revenge', again because of their assumptions about men.
if the movement was really about equality and not gynocentric pride, they'd call themselves philanthropists (love of humans). the term 'feminist' speaks volumes about their real attitudes.
academia is often very biased...it often supports 'studies' like this that help prop up political positions.
The position we should all strive for is the one that is factually correct, logically consistent and fits the problem at hand. I can guarantee that behavioral dynamics are far more complex than the article's sexist author makes them out to be. If there are correlations with gender, I'm sure they boil down to "men lead hierarchies" and "women deliberate in committees" most of the time, and that there are plenty of bitches and bastards in this world, as well as sane people. This is nothing we didn't all know already. The bias of the article shows with the terms placed as the 'positive' (democratic, interpersonal) standard by which success is judged. This bias is used throughout society in situations where feminists (or their male apologists) want to prop women up as 'equals' or in superiors-if-only-men-would-let-them scenarios.
As for me, I prefer more objective measurements in the leadership I work for, otherwise I find myself compelled to take over, even when I'm not all that interested, just to save my sanity. I work best when everyone is levelheaded and rational rather than passive-aggressive and backstabbing. The gender doesn't matter, up to the point where gender statistics start to play a significant part in whether my boss is the former or the latter.