Do you really think the list of sexism against women would be shorter? Because if not, you are attacking the least-dangerous gender discrimination.
I'm against any sexism, regardless of the gender being disparaged. It's obvious that men experience far less sexism than women, so it makes sense to try to fix the institutionalised sexism against women first, then we can iron out the few wrinkles experienced by men. Men still earn far more than women in the workplace, get better jobs, and have far better prospects. They also run most of the world.
Don't you see you are being just as sexist as those you pretend to rail against? Of course you don't, as you're not being rational, just insecure and scared of the menace of "women". Shame.
That's two, not bad. No-one is asking for special treatment to make women "more" than men, just to restore the balance, which by practically every metric shows that women are at a disadvantage in society, and especially the workplace, and double-especially in IT. We (feminists) want everyone to be equal, as we are equal, and that means highlighting these oft-overlooked degrading behaviours and circumstances which conspire to keep this gender difference around,
Have whatever opinion you want, but if it comes down to judging someone based on their gender, you will be called out on it. Loud and frequently. It doesn't matter if you are a gamer or a doctor or a deep-sea diver - if you spot misogyny or misandry or racism or any pathetic behaviour, bring attention to it.
Rosa Parks was not a bus driver, so I guess by your logic she should have shut up and moved to the back, right?
Even if "the woman" said gamers were werewolf pedophiles from Mars, the backlash from the community demonstrated that what she said was true. People targeted other women who spoke out for simply being women or for simply calling attention to the sexism which has been brewing in the gamer world since its inception.
Not understanding the issues, as you so clearly don't (judging by your first complaint), isn't helping you discuss them, and won't help you figure out that misogyny is alive and well, and a danger to us all.
Which goes to show that judging a religion by the contents of its literature is fraught with danger, and if conducted without any depth, is certain to mislead and disparage.
I'd honestly like to see some citations for that stuff about the UK & France, especially seeing as the French ran most of the sorties, and that the UK outspent the US by some estimates...
Because, frequently, to make use of the aid sent it takes people to protect it. The US is affected by every other country on the planet, either directly or indirectly, and it makes sense to deal with issues when they are small and far away than when they are large and close to home. It's both easier and cheaper.
I think it's got more to do with people not wanting chunks of plutonium raining down should something go wrong. That's bad press, regardless of any hysterics you might be imagining in your head. Trying to reduce this to "we can't do it because hippies/politicians will cry" is not going to yield results, and definitely doesn't paint you as an adult discussing this with peers... Stick to credible, citable claims, and you won't look quite so much like the people you're attempting to disparage.
Glorified IE? And you're a Senior System Engineer/Architect? You might want to consider removing your sig if you are going to post things like that, as it hurts your credibility massively, and makes people assume you're nothing of the sort.
No, it just makes you wrong because it's not his. It's everyone's. It was started before him, and will continue after him, because USA! USA! USA! Enjoy!
Let's also bring up the fact that everyone's paying for the cost of pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, and if not today, then definitely in the future. If we factor that one in, they're anything but free. Sure, you can hide who has to pay for it in the end (or even when), but there is a huge price associated with burning them. Again - let's not lie.
So that means we should get rid of all regulation of taxis? Surely the more sane approach would be to fix the system, not remove it entirely and increase these attacks?
There is a difference between sharing a journey which would happen anyway (and being compensated for fuel used, etc.) and someone actively earning a living from driving people around. If you can't see that maybe you should familiarise yourself with this subject before commenting? I know taxis suck in the US (I have no idea about Canada), but elsewhere they are good, and this Uber nonsense threatens to lower the quality massively, as well as put people at risk.
There already *are* popular ride-sharing apps & websites out there, and they're perfectly legal, as they are organising ride-sharing, not people pretending to be professional taxis.
You should see what private insurance gives you - nothing more than a better bed, a nicer room, better meals, etc. That's pretty much it. It's not the difference between life and death, and it costs a pittance. You are assuming too much (e.g. that your opinions are based on fact, which is patently not the case).
So you are saying that universities are perfectly capable of researching new drugs, and massive companies charging everyone through the nose for it are not necessary. How does that fit in with your argument again? I can't believe you are arguing for yourself to have worse healthcare. It's staggering.
Or you could use the dictionary definition of feminism:
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
If you're not a feminist, you are either apathetic toward, or against, equality for women. You seem to be confusing feminism with extremist feminism, which doesn't surprise me, as you've never seemed to be the sharpest tool in the box.
Also, it really doesn't help your argument to use massive generalisations, as that's obvious to anyone who knows how to think that you are being factually inaccurate. You're really not very good at defending your position without revealing your bias and irrationality in the process.
Translation: "I have no idea, but I value my own opinion (even if based on nothing), so here it is! Let me reveal my ignorance to you all! I somehow think this is something to be proud of!"
SVG relies on markup, whereas Canvas is entirely code-oriented. SVG is also vector based (hence the name), and Canvas is raster based, which lend them to different things. Canvas also has 3D support, which SVG does not have. Of course people like slashdice assume there is no difference and will use that as ammunition to "take on" HTML5 and try to seem quietly versed on the subject, but their missing knowledge just highlights that their argument isn't from a position of understanding, but a reaction to something else - maybe just not understanding it? I don't know, it's weird.
Seeing as it has nothing to do with static documents, yeah - It's fine. You really do sound upset. Did HTML5 touch you inappropriately or something? Hint: Because a document can be static doesn't mean it has to always be static. The DOM is perfectly capable of being modified at runtime, and as AngularJS and other frameworks show, is capable of being utilised in some incredibly well-thought-out ways, making rapid (and sane) web-based app development possible. Or I guess you're right and that simply isn't the case... Muppet.
The base structure is fine for this purpose. It seems more and more like you've not tried using some of the new tools. If you had, and still didn't approve, you'd at least be able to coherently point out short-comings instead of throwing a tantrum...
So you drive to the gridlock, get on a bus, drive through the gridlock, then get back in your car? You've not really though this through, which isn't really a surprise:)
Today, maybe - you've not asked, so I know that's a guess. In the future, however, that is doubtful. That gasoline won't flow forever, and Teslas with 1 rider take up a lot of space compared to a rider on a train.
So short-sighted. Every country around the world affects every other, obviously some more than others. Helping poor countries to become productive and safe means the repercussions from their lack of production and lack of safety (wars, famine, disease, piracy, pollution, etc.) do not reach you. Foreign aid is an investment. If the aid costs less than the damage a misbehaving, messed-up country causes, it makes perfect financial sense to pay. The fact you claim the money is "just gone" speaks very loudly to the fact that you are incredibly self-centered and can't possibly consider that all countries affect all other countries (either directly or indirectly). It doesn't make you look particularly clever, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think the list of sexism against women would be shorter? Because if not, you are attacking the least-dangerous gender discrimination.
I'm against any sexism, regardless of the gender being disparaged. It's obvious that men experience far less sexism than women, so it makes sense to try to fix the institutionalised sexism against women first, then we can iron out the few wrinkles experienced by men. Men still earn far more than women in the workplace, get better jobs, and have far better prospects. They also run most of the world.
Don't you see you are being just as sexist as those you pretend to rail against? Of course you don't, as you're not being rational, just insecure and scared of the menace of "women". Shame.
You are confusing cynicism with scepticism. Easily done, but incredibly dangerous.
Mention the "left": Check
Massive "but": Check
That's two, not bad. No-one is asking for special treatment to make women "more" than men, just to restore the balance, which by practically every metric shows that women are at a disadvantage in society, and especially the workplace, and double-especially in IT. We (feminists) want everyone to be equal, as we are equal, and that means highlighting these oft-overlooked degrading behaviours and circumstances which conspire to keep this gender difference around,
Have whatever opinion you want, but if it comes down to judging someone based on their gender, you will be called out on it. Loud and frequently. It doesn't matter if you are a gamer or a doctor or a deep-sea diver - if you spot misogyny or misandry or racism or any pathetic behaviour, bring attention to it.
Rosa Parks was not a bus driver, so I guess by your logic she should have shut up and moved to the back, right?
Even if "the woman" said gamers were werewolf pedophiles from Mars, the backlash from the community demonstrated that what she said was true. People targeted other women who spoke out for simply being women or for simply calling attention to the sexism which has been brewing in the gamer world since its inception.
Not understanding the issues, as you so clearly don't (judging by your first complaint), isn't helping you discuss them, and won't help you figure out that misogyny is alive and well, and a danger to us all.
Which goes to show that judging a religion by the contents of its literature is fraught with danger, and if conducted without any depth, is certain to mislead and disparage.
I'd honestly like to see some citations for that stuff about the UK & France, especially seeing as the French ran most of the sorties, and that the UK outspent the US by some estimates...
Because, frequently, to make use of the aid sent it takes people to protect it. The US is affected by every other country on the planet, either directly or indirectly, and it makes sense to deal with issues when they are small and far away than when they are large and close to home. It's both easier and cheaper.
I think it's got more to do with people not wanting chunks of plutonium raining down should something go wrong. That's bad press, regardless of any hysterics you might be imagining in your head. Trying to reduce this to "we can't do it because hippies/politicians will cry" is not going to yield results, and definitely doesn't paint you as an adult discussing this with peers... Stick to credible, citable claims, and you won't look quite so much like the people you're attempting to disparage.
Glorified IE? And you're a Senior System Engineer/Architect? You might want to consider removing your sig if you are going to post things like that, as it hurts your credibility massively, and makes people assume you're nothing of the sort.
No, it just makes you wrong because it's not his. It's everyone's. It was started before him, and will continue after him, because USA! USA! USA! Enjoy!
Let's also bring up the fact that everyone's paying for the cost of pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, and if not today, then definitely in the future. If we factor that one in, they're anything but free. Sure, you can hide who has to pay for it in the end (or even when), but there is a huge price associated with burning them. Again - let's not lie.
So that means we should get rid of all regulation of taxis? Surely the more sane approach would be to fix the system, not remove it entirely and increase these attacks?
There is a difference between sharing a journey which would happen anyway (and being compensated for fuel used, etc.) and someone actively earning a living from driving people around. If you can't see that maybe you should familiarise yourself with this subject before commenting? I know taxis suck in the US (I have no idea about Canada), but elsewhere they are good, and this Uber nonsense threatens to lower the quality massively, as well as put people at risk.
There already *are* popular ride-sharing apps & websites out there, and they're perfectly legal, as they are organising ride-sharing, not people pretending to be professional taxis.
You should see what private insurance gives you - nothing more than a better bed, a nicer room, better meals, etc. That's pretty much it. It's not the difference between life and death, and it costs a pittance. You are assuming too much (e.g. that your opinions are based on fact, which is patently not the case).
So you are saying that universities are perfectly capable of researching new drugs, and massive companies charging everyone through the nose for it are not necessary. How does that fit in with your argument again? I can't believe you are arguing for yourself to have worse healthcare. It's staggering.
Or you could use the dictionary definition of feminism:
If you're not a feminist, you are either apathetic toward, or against, equality for women. You seem to be confusing feminism with extremist feminism, which doesn't surprise me, as you've never seemed to be the sharpest tool in the box.
Also, it really doesn't help your argument to use massive generalisations, as that's obvious to anyone who knows how to think that you are being factually inaccurate. You're really not very good at defending your position without revealing your bias and irrationality in the process.
There you go again with your hate-filled nonsense. You are a terrible human being, but it's probably your parents' fault for raising an utter shit.
Translation: "I have no idea, but I value my own opinion (even if based on nothing), so here it is! Let me reveal my ignorance to you all! I somehow think this is something to be proud of!"
SVG relies on markup, whereas Canvas is entirely code-oriented. SVG is also vector based (hence the name), and Canvas is raster based, which lend them to different things. Canvas also has 3D support, which SVG does not have. Of course people like slashdice assume there is no difference and will use that as ammunition to "take on" HTML5 and try to seem quietly versed on the subject, but their missing knowledge just highlights that their argument isn't from a position of understanding, but a reaction to something else - maybe just not understanding it? I don't know, it's weird.
Seeing as it has nothing to do with static documents, yeah - It's fine. You really do sound upset. Did HTML5 touch you inappropriately or something? Hint: Because a document can be static doesn't mean it has to always be static. The DOM is perfectly capable of being modified at runtime, and as AngularJS and other frameworks show, is capable of being utilised in some incredibly well-thought-out ways, making rapid (and sane) web-based app development possible. Or I guess you're right and that simply isn't the case... Muppet.
The base structure is fine for this purpose. It seems more and more like you've not tried using some of the new tools. If you had, and still didn't approve, you'd at least be able to coherently point out short-comings instead of throwing a tantrum...
You need help.
They are capable of running up to 562.5mph.
So you drive to the gridlock, get on a bus, drive through the gridlock, then get back in your car? You've not really though this through, which isn't really a surprise :)
Today, maybe - you've not asked, so I know that's a guess. In the future, however, that is doubtful. That gasoline won't flow forever, and Teslas with 1 rider take up a lot of space compared to a rider on a train.
So short-sighted. Every country around the world affects every other, obviously some more than others. Helping poor countries to become productive and safe means the repercussions from their lack of production and lack of safety (wars, famine, disease, piracy, pollution, etc.) do not reach you. Foreign aid is an investment. If the aid costs less than the damage a misbehaving, messed-up country causes, it makes perfect financial sense to pay. The fact you claim the money is "just gone" speaks very loudly to the fact that you are incredibly self-centered and can't possibly consider that all countries affect all other countries (either directly or indirectly). It doesn't make you look particularly clever, that's for sure.