It is a blend of math and science, neither of which are popular amongst women
Actually, both of those *are* popular among women, which is why there has often been some surprise about the number of women in CS. (I put it to the still extant sexist and exclusionary attitude I've noticed in computer geeks - by no meals all or necessarily even most, but enough to make women feel unwelcome or out of place.)
There aren't many women pioneers in CS (I cant even name any, which is pretty sad)
Ada Lovelace, for one, although societal attitudes to women's education did prevent, as you say, there from being a large number in the early pioneers of computers.
2. The dock is cool and all, because 90% of the time I'm using the same dozen or so apps. But for those lesser-used programs the options are either clutter your dock, or have to open and sort through the app folder every time.
I use a freeware program called XMenu for that; it lets you add an icon in the menubar at the top of the screen that you can click to display the contents of your Applications folder. (It also allows you to choose from a few other common folders or a user-defined folder.)
3. Closing the last window of a program doesn't terminate the program - quite different than other OS's - and it means I have to rember apple-Q instead of clicking the x to actually quit
It depends on the application; single-window applications will close when you close the window with the red button, while multiple-window applications will assume you plan on opening or starting a new document or whatnot.
That used to be the case (and it was amazingly stupid of Apple, I agree), but they've been moving video over to iTunes recently. iTunes does support full-screen QuickTime video without requiring a Pro license.
About the Mode 7 bit - Nintendo actually did futz and at the last minute slashed the scaling and rotation hardware, leaving out part of it in order to manufacture the hardware at a lower price. F-Zero and Pilotwings both included the left-out chip on their PCBs in order to achieve the more impressive effects you mention.
Apple has stated in the past that they would consider licensing their DRM to other companies. Nothing came of that, of course, because Real decided to ignore them and try to get their own DRM working on the iPod instead.
Surely conservation would demand restoring predators to proper levels in order to restore the self-conserving natural balance, not the artificial culling of deer you propose.
Actually, according to the USPTO registered entries, TigerDirect (none of whose trademarks have the word "tiger" except as a part of another word - see TigerDirect, TigerDirect.com, TigerPC, and so on) is in the field of "mail order services featuring computer hardware and software," while Apple is in the field of "computer operating systems."
That's not really true; France already gets separate DVDs from, say, Britain because of language of packaging and DVD menus. Even the relatively small province of Quebec in Canada sometimes gets separate DVDs from the rest of the country.
Not quite. That's an audio recording of player piano rolls, but this is really the opposite - it's converting a recording into the digital equivalent of a player piano roll to play back on a real piano.
I would assume that the anti-discrimination law would be written in precisely the same manner as current anti-discrimination laws about race and religion, which would neatly take care of your concerns in more ways than one. Aside from taking into account what I mentioned above, they basically invariably have an exception for religious organizations, which are given freedom in their beliefs even where they are racist, sexist, or discriminatory of other religions or homosexuals. You'll note that current anti-discrimination laws have not forced the Catholic church to ordain women, for instance.
...And you think that will increase their relevance? Have you ever watched a dog eat vomit? They pretty much all do, if you watch them long enough. There have been studies that demonstrated monkeys would steal things if shown a tangible value associated with them. And what about territorial fights to the death? That happens all over the animal kingdom.
So you reject the evidence not on the basis of its factuality, but because some animals do things that people don't do? That's entirely unrelated.
This research (Simon LeVay was one of the originators - look him up), incidentally, originated in rats and focused not on the behaviour itself so much as the *cause* for the behaviour. It was later confirmed through looking at human examples, who exhibited the same physiological difference; that difference also originated under the same circumstances, conditions in the mother's womb. Your example might be related if humans *did* eat their own vomit and we wanted to determine whether or not they did it due to an inborn mechanism or whether it was acquired, but that's not so.
Ye-e-e-ah. And do you honestly think that there wouldn't be tons of rejected applicants suing with the claim that it was actually because they were a practicing homosexual?
That doesn't change the fact that there is a genuine need for the legislation. A few abuse current anti-discrimination laws, but in general they work.
There have been studies that seem to indicate this, however the methods and sample populations used make their conclusions dubious at best (a high number of known criminals, for example)
The studies I was talking about were conducted with animals, not humans.
This law would make it impossible for churches to reject candidates whose lifestyles are those of a homosexual despite the fact that it is opposition to their religious teachings (protected by the constitution) and really common sense.
I fairly doubt it, since discrimination laws only restrict hiring decisions where the *sole factor* for denying employment or whatnot is the thing being discriminated against, not the person's ability to perform the job. If the job is for a pastor in a church whose teachings are that homosexuality is sinful, then the person is not being rejected on the basis of homosexuality, per se, but because the person would not be able to perform the job properly. Similarly, declining to hire a Christian with strong views against pornography for a job, e.g., directing pornographic videos is not discriminating against the applicant's Christianity but a judgement based on the applicant's ability to perform the job in question.
No, I'm *really* not a libertarian. I generally disagree with most libertarian ideas.
How exactly do you define "moral?" Why, if something is not harmful, is it still immoral? Essentially the defining standard of morality is whether it is conductive to a peaceful community or not.
Yes, and deservedly so. Being a homicidal maniac is harmful, whereas homosexuality is only harmful in a completely illogical recursive manner - if you assume that it's harmful because it can cause other people to be homosexual, which is bad because see previous, and so on ad infinitum.
I didn't say it was genetic, I said it was in-born. There's a difference.
Furthermore, "sexual preference" is a term. It's not necessarily a very accurate one, as you point out, but it's the term we have and I stand a much better chance of being understood if I use existing terms rather than making up my own.
I mentioned Simon LeVay's experiments elsewhere in the general thread, but thought I might mention that they seem particularly pertinent to your post. He found that brain structure leading to homosexuality was a product of conditions in the mother's womb, which tends more to the side of causation in this instance than your proposed looser correlation.
That's because it's not genetic. Experiments like Simon LeVay's have determined that a major cause is physical, resulting from conditions in the mother's womb. Development of the brain depends on those conditions, and certain physiological development causes homosexual behaviour.
Politics aside, it's a fact that child molestation causes emotional problems later in life for the molested child, hence why there is a real, not just political, basis there.
Simon LeVay's experiments, in the early 1990s, are quite famous; he determined that homosexuality is the result of physiological changes in the mother's womb, under certain conditions.* In experiments with rats it was found to be related to certain parts of the brain; INAH3 was the one that one experiment focused on, if I recall correctly. It was found to have developed differently in homosexual male rats than in heterosexual rats, and was similar in size to a female's.
*It seems related to stress the mother undergoes during pregnancy; among other things, a strong correlation has been noticed between rates of homosexuality and catastrophic events or war conditions in specific areas.
Why not draw the line based on what is clearly behaviour that causes harm and behaviour that doesn't cause harm? Just saying that discrimination is all right because different countries have different ideas of what is acceptable is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
They're talking about using the cranks to generate power, not pressing the on switch.
That used to be the case (and it was amazingly stupid of Apple, I agree), but they've been moving video over to iTunes recently. iTunes does support full-screen QuickTime video without requiring a Pro license.
About the Mode 7 bit - Nintendo actually did futz and at the last minute slashed the scaling and rotation hardware, leaving out part of it in order to manufacture the hardware at a lower price. F-Zero and Pilotwings both included the left-out chip on their PCBs in order to achieve the more impressive effects you mention.
Re: the API bit, Apple has said that after Tiger, they won't be changing the APIs, just adding new ones.
Apple has stated in the past that they would consider licensing their DRM to other companies. Nothing came of that, of course, because Real decided to ignore them and try to get their own DRM working on the iPod instead.
Surely conservation would demand restoring predators to proper levels in order to restore the self-conserving natural balance, not the artificial culling of deer you propose.
To nitpick, they included support for it in Virtual Server, which is a different product from Virtual PC.
Actually, according to the USPTO registered entries, TigerDirect (none of whose trademarks have the word "tiger" except as a part of another word - see TigerDirect, TigerDirect.com, TigerPC, and so on) is in the field of "mail order services featuring computer hardware and software," while Apple is in the field of "computer operating systems."
That's not really true; France already gets separate DVDs from, say, Britain because of language of packaging and DVD menus. Even the relatively small province of Quebec in Canada sometimes gets separate DVDs from the rest of the country.
Not quite. That's an audio recording of player piano rolls, but this is really the opposite - it's converting a recording into the digital equivalent of a player piano roll to play back on a real piano.
I would assume that the anti-discrimination law would be written in precisely the same manner as current anti-discrimination laws about race and religion, which would neatly take care of your concerns in more ways than one. Aside from taking into account what I mentioned above, they basically invariably have an exception for religious organizations, which are given freedom in their beliefs even where they are racist, sexist, or discriminatory of other religions or homosexuals. You'll note that current anti-discrimination laws have not forced the Catholic church to ordain women, for instance.
This research (Simon LeVay was one of the originators - look him up), incidentally, originated in rats and focused not on the behaviour itself so much as the *cause* for the behaviour. It was later confirmed through looking at human examples, who exhibited the same physiological difference; that difference also originated under the same circumstances, conditions in the mother's womb. Your example might be related if humans *did* eat their own vomit and we wanted to determine whether or not they did it due to an inborn mechanism or whether it was acquired, but that's not so.
That doesn't change the fact that there is a genuine need for the legislation. A few abuse current anti-discrimination laws, but in general they work.No, I'm *really* not a libertarian. I generally disagree with most libertarian ideas. How exactly do you define "moral?" Why, if something is not harmful, is it still immoral? Essentially the defining standard of morality is whether it is conductive to a peaceful community or not.
(Of course, I'm an arts student - for all I know, science articles might be more readily available, but if so I wouldn't know where to link you.)
Yes, and deservedly so. Being a homicidal maniac is harmful, whereas homosexuality is only harmful in a completely illogical recursive manner - if you assume that it's harmful because it can cause other people to be homosexual, which is bad because see previous, and so on ad infinitum.
Furthermore, "sexual preference" is a term. It's not necessarily a very accurate one, as you point out, but it's the term we have and I stand a much better chance of being understood if I use existing terms rather than making up my own.
I mentioned Simon LeVay's experiments elsewhere in the general thread, but thought I might mention that they seem particularly pertinent to your post. He found that brain structure leading to homosexuality was a product of conditions in the mother's womb, which tends more to the side of causation in this instance than your proposed looser correlation.
That's because it's not genetic. Experiments like Simon LeVay's have determined that a major cause is physical, resulting from conditions in the mother's womb. Development of the brain depends on those conditions, and certain physiological development causes homosexual behaviour.
Politics aside, it's a fact that child molestation causes emotional problems later in life for the molested child, hence why there is a real, not just political, basis there.
Simon LeVay's experiments, in the early 1990s, are quite famous; he determined that homosexuality is the result of physiological changes in the mother's womb, under certain conditions.* In experiments with rats it was found to be related to certain parts of the brain; INAH3 was the one that one experiment focused on, if I recall correctly. It was found to have developed differently in homosexual male rats than in heterosexual rats, and was similar in size to a female's. *It seems related to stress the mother undergoes during pregnancy; among other things, a strong correlation has been noticed between rates of homosexuality and catastrophic events or war conditions in specific areas.
Why not draw the line based on what is clearly behaviour that causes harm and behaviour that doesn't cause harm? Just saying that discrimination is all right because different countries have different ideas of what is acceptable is absurd.