No it doesn't. Perhaps desktop linux has already succeeded: It is a desktop that is perfect for people who actually know what they're doing. The only thing the popular systems have done is create new levels of incompetence and ignorance. The average user has now reached fisherprice levels of aptitude, and it shows. Instead of enabling creativity and intellect like in the 80s and 90s, most of today's cpus spend their time churning javascript from social media sites, ad networks, and content barren sites with oversized fonts and needless clutter. They're popular, though, so it's all good, right?
"Inane and stupid" is, after all, generally a pretty good description of the futile and unpopular.
Only if you're popular and stupid, I guess. Of course, people like that are often too ignorant and stupid to realize how much their worlds depend on the less popular elements they scorn.
The first paragraph is a fallacious appeal to antiquity. Those 'old school' desktops are what allow people to create the content for those idiot consumption devices you love so much. Btw, 'multiple core design' was a thing long before social media and smartphones.
The second lacks examples. 'Social media' is hardly an enterprise solution for mail, and it comes with a boatload of negatives regarding privacy and security. Sure, email is not usually crypted, but at least the server is under local control and runs on the localnet, keeping private corporate matters private. About the only thing 'social media' messaging is good for is browser tracking, ads, and broadcasting of narcissistic histrionics.
The last paragraph is not an argument. It's an emotional appeal. The irony, here, is that those social media services you think are so hip run on such data centers. Those 'old school' servers are what allow people to create and run the services those idiot consumption devices you love so much depend on.
The fact there's likely always more security patches coming in the future means it's likely your machine is an insecure piece of crap whether it has the latest updates or not.
element hider. I suppose there are other addons that do this, but this one integrates nicely with abp. It's useful for getting around in-page popups and other stupid shit that web 'designers' crowd their pag..err excuse me I mean 'web apps' with.
Meaningless scribbles on scraps of paper are useless for national defense.. Just ask hitler and stalin. As long as china does the bulk of our technology manufacturing, this will never fly. Even if china wanted to, it could never enforce such policy, and neither country will roll back its surveillance programs on the other.
If you actually mentioned certain other groups associated with such things, your post would be labled -1 troll for bigotry.. but since you said 'males', everyone yucks it up and votes you +5 funny. Unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally?), you highlighted the systemic cultural bias against men.
I think he meant gaming/workstation laptops.. not the garden variety macbook pro with intel video and slow cpu. The more accurate term for these is 'portables' because while they have batteries, they don't last more than an hour usually.
Simple: These cards are not targeted at ultralights. What's different is that this is the desktop 980 chip in a laptop format. Normally, nvidia disables a few cores, underclocks, and adds an 'm' to the model. They didn't do that this time. Instead, they left the chip intact, binned for good ones, and modified the power regulation. Like the other high end 'm' gtx models, you'll find these in gaming machines which are way bigger and heavier than ultralights.
If you think discussing these issues is panicky nonsense, why are you here? Since you are, why aren't you making fun of them, too? I mean, why do they care how men use the bathroom? Anyway, the huffington post and guardian are routinely quoted by slashdoters as valid sources for news, and their articles pass the submissions filter regularly.
For something to be discriminatory it has to disadvantage someone. That's why gender segregated bathrooms are not discriminatory - everyone is served equally and the segregation exists for an easily justifiable reason.
Privileging girls by keeping boys out of some of the comp-sci camps discriminates against boys the same way keeping girls out discriminates against girls.
Anyway, feminists have problems here too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... You don't see men imploring the state to micromanage women in the bathroom.
So in your example it would only be sexist to exclude boys if there was not already a class for boys. In this case boys have privilege - they are the majority in the class, they don't face gender based discrimination from their classmates. They might have other problems, but the point is that they effectively already have a "boy's only" CS class.
There is no class for boys.Only classes open to the general public, and now, these special girls-only clubs. They're not allowed a defined space. If you stand for equal opportunity, then you focus on ensuring both boys and girls are not shut out of the same opportunity based on their sex. No favoritism for either. At that point, if 15 boys sign up but only 3 girls do, there is really no fault to be had. It's individuals making choices for themselves. If boys don't sign up for something because 'girls are icky' what do we tell them? Right, girls should be taught the same lesson about treating boys that way. As a side note, it's normal, healthy behavior for boys to identify with boys and girls to identify with girls. Demonizing this too much leads to neurotic behavior later.
Can't win, can we? If it's extra money on top it's discriminatory because money should go into a pool for everyone. If it's the same money being divided up differently to facilitate the education of a subgroup, that's also discrimination.
Yes it is. That's why affirmative action is most overt example of systemic discrimination in play today. In publicly funded programs, there's a fixed amount allocated for the purpose. If any of that money is set aside for a specific sex, it reduces opportunity for the other. This includes diversion for the purpose of pressuring equal outcome (50/50 enrollment) because it starves the more numerous group from needed funds/slots, thus denying some percentage the opportunity. In private spaces, those who choose to sign up and can pay, go, and it would only be sexual discrimination if the operators forbade someone entry because of sex. Obviously, relevant discriminators should always apply. Equal opportunity does not, nor should, guarantee equal outcomes calculated from irrelevant attributes like sex.
Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.
..and as I pointed out, no they don't.
That doesn't work for adults, let alone children.
Sure it works. You just expect perfect compliance from people's behavior and thoughts, and you want jackboots to stomp people flat for any variation from the doctrine's marching orders. That unreasonable thinking is why heavily socialist societies end up as hellholes of some sort. Equal opportunity is not equal outcome because everyone is an individual with a unique mix of imperatives, temperaments, strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that you want us believing sex has no bearing on this. You are wrong. Sex cuts right down to the DNA, making for substantial difference in physiological and psychological makeup between them. Expecting equal sexual outcome everywhere is crazy.
Why does it make sense? By saying that you invalidate the feminist argument that differences between the two are simple social constructs that need breaking down.
Oh, we already have feminists trying to micromanage men in their bathrooms.
If it's sexist to girls to keep them out of computer science classes, then it's sexist to boys to keep them out of computer science classes. If girls feel uncomfortable being the odd ones out, then, being equally human, the same thing can be said for boys who are not allowed to have their own spaces to pursue the same interests. Therefore funds should be divided to service both camps. Any other position is sex discrimination. If funds are being diverted from classes where everyone is welcome to classes where only those with certain traits are welcome, especially traits that are argued as not being relevant in the first place, then that's systemic discrimination against those who are not welcome. You can't argue for 'safe spaces' for some and not others while arguing for equality. We're either all entitled or Either we're all entitled to 'safe spaces' or none of us are.
I have a better idea. Leave the camps open to everyone. This way kids learn that life is about getting long with the opposite sex, and that society is not obligated to isolate them from those they find 'uncomfortable' for whatever reason. If girls choose to opt out where they can't get privileged treatment, then that's a character flaw they need to work on. After all, this is what we tell boys (and men) all the time.
Hey you know, your viewers pay for their connectivity and bw.. You can pay for yours. Don't waste theirs downloading megabytes of abusive javascript and crappy videos.
If google had done what it was supposed to do, keep the private keys private, this would not have happened. My understanding of x509 is that google is supposed to generate signing reqs from those keys and send them to the CA who then signs them and generates google's CA certs. They probably just have thawte generate keys for them, which is stupid, and probably commonplace today.
Historically, the left doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to open societies and culture. I'm the responses to this statement will be chock full of abusive semantics and no true scotsman fallacies.
If I had cable, my monthly subscription fee would subsidize all the barely-qualifies-as-content crap I don't care to watch while they cancel the few things I do...and they have ads. wtf? Pay for ads? How is this justified again? Fuck it. I'm not paying $100+ a month for ad ridden services. Put ads in it and it's worth, at most, $0 to me. Maybe less as I'd like to bill them for my time spent watching/sifting through ads.
Gee, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought 'diversity' strongly implied and endorsed individuality - especially given that one antonym of 'diversity' is 'conformity'.
Sure, except when it doesn't. Diversity is great until it's suggested that class-based affirmative action is hypocritical. In the case of this article, if you're techno-literate and run a successful business in the field, you're an oppressor, especially if you skip out on Dear Leader's speeches (among other accusations).
Does the article really strike you as "groupthink knee jerking"? If so, then wouldn't you at least apply the same criticism to the corporate world, so much of which is the epitome of groupthink?
Of course, and, yes, I would. Radical leftists like the author of this article are fine examples of dogmatic left wing knee jerkers. I called this guy a communist because he writes like one. He uses the terminology and appeals that communists (and a lot of today's left) would...and yes, there's plenty of dogmatic garbage, knee jerking, and groupthink, in the corporate world, too. The same social dynamic ills affect both public and private organizations. The bigger they are, the worse they get. They both become dangerous when they garner too much sway over society.
There's nothing wrong with diversity in its natural state, which is based on individual rights and liberty for all, by default. The politically charged left wing version is a perversion of the original meaning. Their version picks winners and losers based on the traits that were supposedly used to oppress and actively reenforces castes from them. The winners get social/legal/financial privilege by default, and the losers have to pay for it. All this does is create new underclasses that war with each other.
Oh wow, this article reads like a pravda piece might have during the height of the cold war. Lets do a sanity check. We have two 'trigger' words in this summary: 'colonialism' and 'imperialism', in newspeak contexts. Lets click on the link and see... Ah, the slogan is "Technology, culture and diversity media." We have another newspeak term: 'diversity', as any individual daring to identify as an individual or, worse, act in his own interest, is obviously a racist, sexist 'imperialist' pig dead set on world domination. Care to guess the politics of the submitter and/or the source?
However, despite being invited, Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer, and Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, perhaps feeling their own imperial bona fides, decided to skip the president’s speech.
Like, how DARE they skip out on Dear Leader??! They need to check their privilege!
I'm all for protecting personal identity, rights, and liberty from predatory people and organizations (private AND public!), but this source is just a tad biased, folks. Too biased for its analysis to be much use. This article spends too much time bitching about the corp-rats, and no time dealing with the big elephants in the room, the ones issuing mandatory surveillance law and gag orders to silence criticism and dissent from those who would rather opt out. If the political culture in western countries still respected individual rights over groupthink knee jerking, we wouldn't have half the privacy concerns we do.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't. Perhaps desktop linux has already succeeded: It is a desktop that is perfect for people who actually know what they're doing. The only thing the popular systems have done is create new levels of incompetence and ignorance. The average user has now reached fisherprice levels of aptitude, and it shows. Instead of enabling creativity and intellect like in the 80s and 90s, most of today's cpus spend their time churning javascript from social media sites, ad networks, and content barren sites with oversized fonts and needless clutter. They're popular, though, so it's all good, right?
"Inane and stupid" is, after all, generally a pretty good description of the futile and unpopular.
Only if you're popular and stupid, I guess. Of course, people like that are often too ignorant and stupid to realize how much their worlds depend on the less popular elements they scorn.
The first paragraph is a fallacious appeal to antiquity. Those 'old school' desktops are what allow people to create the content for those idiot consumption devices you love so much. Btw, 'multiple core design' was a thing long before social media and smartphones.
The second lacks examples. 'Social media' is hardly an enterprise solution for mail, and it comes with a boatload of negatives regarding privacy and security. Sure, email is not usually crypted, but at least the server is under local control and runs on the localnet, keeping private corporate matters private. About the only thing 'social media' messaging is good for is browser tracking, ads, and broadcasting of narcissistic histrionics.
The last paragraph is not an argument. It's an emotional appeal. The irony, here, is that those social media services you think are so hip run on such data centers. Those 'old school' servers are what allow people to create and run the services those idiot consumption devices you love so much depend on.
The fact there's likely always more security patches coming in the future means it's likely your machine is an insecure piece of crap whether it has the latest updates or not.
No, that only proves that its competitors are doing the popular thing. What's popular is usually inane and stupid.
element hider. I suppose there are other addons that do this, but this one integrates nicely with abp. It's useful for getting around in-page popups and other stupid shit that web 'designers' crowd their pag..err excuse me I mean 'web apps' with.
Meaningless scribbles on scraps of paper are useless for national defense.. Just ask hitler and stalin. As long as china does the bulk of our technology manufacturing, this will never fly. Even if china wanted to, it could never enforce such policy, and neither country will roll back its surveillance programs on the other.
If you actually mentioned certain other groups associated with such things, your post would be labled -1 troll for bigotry.. but since you said 'males', everyone yucks it up and votes you +5 funny. Unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally?), you highlighted the systemic cultural bias against men.
Yeah, and then where will you go? If you post here, you're likely in that field.
I think he meant gaming/workstation laptops.. not the garden variety macbook pro with intel video and slow cpu. The more accurate term for these is 'portables' because while they have batteries, they don't last more than an hour usually.
Simple: These cards are not targeted at ultralights. What's different is that this is the desktop 980 chip in a laptop format. Normally, nvidia disables a few cores, underclocks, and adds an 'm' to the model. They didn't do that this time. Instead, they left the chip intact, binned for good ones, and modified the power regulation. Like the other high end 'm' gtx models, you'll find these in gaming machines which are way bigger and heavier than ultralights.
If you think discussing these issues is panicky nonsense, why are you here? Since you are, why aren't you making fun of them, too? I mean, why do they care how men use the bathroom? Anyway, the huffington post and guardian are routinely quoted by slashdoters as valid sources for news, and their articles pass the submissions filter regularly.
For something to be discriminatory it has to disadvantage someone. That's why gender segregated bathrooms are not discriminatory - everyone is served equally and the segregation exists for an easily justifiable reason.
Privileging girls by keeping boys out of some of the comp-sci camps discriminates against boys the same way keeping girls out discriminates against girls.
Anyway, feminists have problems here too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
You don't see men imploring the state to micromanage women in the bathroom.
So in your example it would only be sexist to exclude boys if there was not already a class for boys. In this case boys have privilege - they are the majority in the class, they don't face gender based discrimination from their classmates. They might have other problems, but the point is that they effectively already have a "boy's only" CS class.
There is no class for boys.Only classes open to the general public, and now, these special girls-only clubs. They're not allowed a defined space. If you stand for equal opportunity, then you focus on ensuring both boys and girls are not shut out of the same opportunity based on their sex. No favoritism for either. At that point, if 15 boys sign up but only 3 girls do, there is really no fault to be had. It's individuals making choices for themselves. If boys don't sign up for something because 'girls are icky' what do we tell them? Right, girls should be taught the same lesson about treating boys that way. As a side note, it's normal, healthy behavior for boys to identify with boys and girls to identify with girls. Demonizing this too much leads to neurotic behavior later.
Can't win, can we? If it's extra money on top it's discriminatory because money should go into a pool for everyone. If it's the same money being divided up differently to facilitate the education of a subgroup, that's also discrimination.
Yes it is. That's why affirmative action is most overt example of systemic discrimination in play today. In publicly funded programs, there's a fixed amount allocated for the purpose. If any of that money is set aside for a specific sex, it reduces opportunity for the other. This includes diversion for the purpose of pressuring equal outcome (50/50 enrollment) because it starves the more numerous group from needed funds/slots, thus denying some percentage the opportunity. In private spaces, those who choose to sign up and can pay, go, and it would only be sexual discrimination if the operators forbade someone entry because of sex. Obviously, relevant discriminators should always apply. Equal opportunity does not, nor should, guarantee equal outcomes calculated from irrelevant attributes like sex.
Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.
..and as I pointed out, no they don't.
That doesn't work for adults, let alone children.
Sure it works. You just expect perfect compliance from people's behavior and thoughts, and you want jackboots to stomp people flat for any variation from the doctrine's marching orders. That unreasonable thinking is why heavily socialist societies end up as hellholes of some sort. Equal opportunity is not equal outcome because everyone is an individual with a unique mix of imperatives, temperaments, strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that you want us believing sex has no bearing on this. You are wrong. Sex cuts right down to the DNA, making for substantial difference in physiological and psychological makeup between them. Expecting equal sexual outcome everywhere is crazy.
Why does it make sense? By saying that you invalidate the feminist argument that differences between the two are simple social constructs that need breaking down.
Oh, we already have feminists trying to micromanage men in their bathrooms.
two random google hits..
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
If it's sexist to girls to keep them out of computer science classes, then it's sexist to boys to keep them out of computer science classes. If girls feel uncomfortable being the odd ones out, then, being equally human, the same thing can be said for boys who are not allowed to have their own spaces to pursue the same interests. Therefore funds should be divided to service both camps. Any other position is sex discrimination. If funds are being diverted from classes where everyone is welcome to classes where only those with certain traits are welcome, especially traits that are argued as not being relevant in the first place, then that's systemic discrimination against those who are not welcome. You can't argue for 'safe spaces' for some and not others while arguing for equality. We're either all entitled or Either we're all entitled to 'safe spaces' or none of us are.
I have a better idea. Leave the camps open to everyone. This way kids learn that life is about getting long with the opposite sex, and that society is not obligated to isolate them from those they find 'uncomfortable' for whatever reason. If girls choose to opt out where they can't get privileged treatment, then that's a character flaw they need to work on. After all, this is what we tell boys (and men) all the time.
Also, quality takes time.
Hey you know, your viewers pay for their connectivity and bw.. You can pay for yours. Don't waste theirs downloading megabytes of abusive javascript and crappy videos.
Yes, I assumed that thawte was managing google's certs for them when I wrote that.
Google is their own certificate authority and likely has no need for a relationship with Thawte.
That I did not know.
Makes sense, and is basically what I said, but I assumed that thawte was handling google's certs for them. Thanks for the clarification.
Explain.
If google had done what it was supposed to do, keep the private keys private, this would not have happened. My understanding of x509 is that google is supposed to generate signing reqs from those keys and send them to the CA who then signs them and generates google's CA certs. They probably just have thawte generate keys for them, which is stupid, and probably commonplace today.
Historically, the left doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to open societies and culture. I'm the responses to this statement will be chock full of abusive semantics and no true scotsman fallacies.
If I had cable, my monthly subscription fee would subsidize all the barely-qualifies-as-content crap I don't care to watch while they cancel the few things I do...and they have ads. wtf? Pay for ads? How is this justified again? Fuck it. I'm not paying $100+ a month for ad ridden services. Put ads in it and it's worth, at most, $0 to me. Maybe less as I'd like to bill them for my time spent watching/sifting through ads.
Gee, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought 'diversity' strongly implied and endorsed individuality - especially given that one antonym of 'diversity' is 'conformity'.
Sure, except when it doesn't. Diversity is great until it's suggested that class-based affirmative action is hypocritical. In the case of this article, if you're techno-literate and run a successful business in the field, you're an oppressor, especially if you skip out on Dear Leader's speeches (among other accusations).
Does the article really strike you as "groupthink knee jerking"? If so, then wouldn't you at least apply the same criticism to the corporate world, so much of which is the epitome of groupthink?
Of course, and, yes, I would. Radical leftists like the author of this article are fine examples of dogmatic left wing knee jerkers. I called this guy a communist because he writes like one. He uses the terminology and appeals that communists (and a lot of today's left) would. ..and yes, there's plenty of dogmatic garbage, knee jerking, and groupthink, in the corporate world, too. The same social dynamic ills affect both public and private organizations. The bigger they are, the worse they get. They both become dangerous when they garner too much sway over society.
There's nothing wrong with diversity in its natural state, which is based on individual rights and liberty for all, by default. The politically charged left wing version is a perversion of the original meaning. Their version picks winners and losers based on the traits that were supposedly used to oppress and actively reenforces castes from them. The winners get social/legal/financial privilege by default, and the losers have to pay for it. All this does is create new underclasses that war with each other.
Oh wow, this article reads like a pravda piece might have during the height of the cold war. Lets do a sanity check. We have two 'trigger' words in this summary: 'colonialism' and 'imperialism', in newspeak contexts. Lets click on the link and see... Ah, the slogan is "Technology, culture and diversity media." We have another newspeak term: 'diversity', as any individual daring to identify as an individual or, worse, act in his own interest, is obviously a racist, sexist 'imperialist' pig dead set on world domination. Care to guess the politics of the submitter and/or the source?
However, despite being invited, Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer, and Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, perhaps feeling their own imperial bona fides, decided to skip the president’s speech.
Like, how DARE they skip out on Dear Leader??! They need to check their privilege!
I'm all for protecting personal identity, rights, and liberty from predatory people and organizations (private AND public!), but this source is just a tad biased, folks. Too biased for its analysis to be much use. This article spends too much time bitching about the corp-rats, and no time dealing with the big elephants in the room, the ones issuing mandatory surveillance law and gag orders to silence criticism and dissent from those who would rather opt out. If the political culture in western countries still respected individual rights over groupthink knee jerking, we wouldn't have half the privacy concerns we do.