She's not even two yet and I hate pink. Like I said, she stays home with her dad who likes to dress her up like a dinosaur. Where the fuck did she pick up the stereotype that she should prefer the pink shirt to the blue shirt?
I suspect that liking pink is innate to boys and girls alike. I have seen little boys (less than 3yo) go for bright pink objects over any other color. I am led to assume that pink just feels like a vivid, yet soft and pleasant color to us - that is, before we males duly acquire proper male tastes, and grow a strong, healthy distaste for it.
That said, I am quite convinced that there are, on average, innate psychological differences between men and women. It's just that these differences are much less pronounced than the differences between conventional male and female behaviors, and can only be appreciated in a fuzzy, statistical way, not with statements of the form "men prefer A, women prefer B".
Yup, the amount of atheist bigotry and unpleasantness here is incredible. Now in their defense, these people are probably Americans who endure a lot of religious bigotry in their daily lives. They are just trying to fight back, but this doesn't really help at all.
Actually, some of the more reasonable/. readers would probably find this a lot less objectionable if it was a case of Microsoft making money by selling Microsoft products.
How about you don't lump us all together as imperialist, culture-bound yahoos?
I have lived in the US and I would never lump Americans together as imperialists. Actually, I wouldn't dream of lumping them together as *anything*. Not a clever thing to do with Americans.
OTOH, the US as a country - meaning the elected government - has imperialist policies and attitude, and has had them for a while now. It is up to US citizens to decide whether they care. In recent decades, the response has been underwhelming.
Exactly. A good rule of thumb: if your "right" requires others to do something for you, it's not a right - it's a service.
That is true of natural rights. But we live in societies where we have elected to grant ourselves many rights that are human constructs. The right to elect our leaders, for one, requires others to do things for us. Maybe you consider that you have a right to basic personal safety, which requires people to maintain a form of law and order.
Or maybe you are the sole inhabitant of a nation-island, in which case I take my comment back.
we don't have the resources to give everyone all the healthcare that they want, when they want it. You have to ration it.
I respectfully disagree with this. The developed world today is more than wealthy enough to provide a broad range of quality healthcare to all its residents, for free. Not all the healthcare people want, but all the basic care they need. Of course, that is a socialist policy, which you are free to disagree with. It is at least partially implemented in many countries today, whose budget deficits are no worse than that of the US. Interestingly, in those countries, unsubsidized private healthcare can be considerably more affordable than in the US.
My point is that rationing healthcare in wealthy countries today is a choice, not a necessity.
Lutheran-Raised Anonymous Coward is right: the Catholic Church was the one who took liberties with the Bible to come up with their own doctrine. The Protestants fought to free themselves of the accumulated Catholic dogma and go back to the biblical roots of Christianity.
In a way, you could credit Protestants for emphasizing personal judgment, and Catholics for de-emphasizing the Bible.
That is certainly true for the desktop market - at least, some segments of it. How well do you think it works for laptops? Compare the price and choices in the OS-free laptop market with the "normal" (i.e. Windows) laptop market. Sure, you can get a Mac too. That makes it a duopoly of sorts.
All right, I concede that there was more rhetoric in that post than substantial argument. Let me explain.
What I mean is, these phrases implicitly belittle the political aspect of every economic issue. We can only vote with our feet if the markets function well, and that only happens with proper regulation (including, but not limited to, antitrust regulation). That, in turn, depends on us voting for the people who will enact such regulation. You know, politicians working for the common good. They are, at the very least, a major theoretical concept.
If the system is skewed (say, by entrenched quasi-monopolies or duopolies, or cartels like the MAFIAA), you can't fight it from inside. You need to change the rules of the game. In principle, democracy means that the people make the rules. Let's be idealistic for a second... isn't it refreshing?
So let me rephrase my previous post in plain language: to say "just take your business elsewhere" is naive and oversimplifying. The public's interests can only be served by a combination of educated consumption (voting with our feet), consumer advocacy, and political awareness as well as activism.
I'm sick of hearing that crap. How do you vote with your feet if there is barely any choice in the so-called "marketplace"? And if you vote with your wallet, will that count against the votes of others whose wallets are rather thicker than yours?
All these "vote with" phrases make a mockery of democracy. Here is my suggestion: vote with your vote. I know, it's pretty damn bold.
You have madman in Syria methodically going city to city killing anyone who disagrees with their government policies and the Israeli critics and peace protesters seem to have no problem with that.
Syria is a third world autocracy like (unfortunately) many others. So yes, Israel is generally held to much higher standards than Syria. I hope most people in Israel regard it as a good thing.
Even if everyone is appalled at what's happening in Syria, there is not much they can do about it. The Iraq-style approach doesn't have much appeal anymore.
This has to be the most overhyped, buzzword-ridden science story I've read in months. As a researcher, I hate to see whatever credibility we have spent on things like this.
Thank you for finally mentioning the numbers!
They take a sample of 16 people, split it in two groups of eight, and publish statistical differences between the samples... It's appalling.
I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.
That's true! By the way, I've just found the original manuscript of King Lear in my attic. Now the (only authoritative version of) the play is MINE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh, my. Not long ago, this would have sparked a never-ending distro flame war.
Now, the Ubuntu crowd is so large and loud that advocates of other distros don't even try to be heard anymore.
No, it's really not. There's a huge dividing rift between the richer and poorer countries. Furthermore, the weakness of its democratic structures (too many powerful people are appointed, not elected) makes it vulnerable to corruption.
Perhaps the parent meant that individual EU countries are in general stable and democratic.
The biggest reason beside racism and the Holocaust for not liking the Nazis is that the US/SU alliance won the war
The Nazis didn't treat the countries they conquered well at all. They would have been remembered poorly even if the US had stayed out of it, as happens to oppressive conquerors.
True enough, and on the Allies' side, this is largely true of the Soviet Union in the same period. At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union was widely disliked in Central (and parts of Eastern) Europe, but being on the winning side, it still got to bring many of those countries into its sphere of influence. Many residents were *not* happy about that.
Why did the US remain in the war 'till the bitter end?
Uh, because we wanted to win? What, did you expect us to turn around right after the D-day victories and say, "well that was a waste of time?" Staying in the war to the bitter end was really a more normal thing to do......
Unless you can put your ideas into other terms, you truly are not worth listening to.
Er, maybe that last bit was not strictly necessary.
I think it should have been called "Computing Science;" there'd be less confusion.
Indeed, in German and in Romance languages like French and Italian, CS is referred to as 'informatics', which should remove the confusion. Strangely enough though, at this point I think most speakers of those languages have also managed to equate the term with 'stuff that happens on computers', which is kind of true from a purely practical perspective (that is, forgetting that there is a theory behind all that). At least the phrase 'computer science' has the merit of including the word 'science'.
if the KDE guys make their environment behave better when a KDE app is loaded from some other window manager, maybe i'll give it another shot.
Now, this is a problem right there. If you load a KDE app in a different window manager, then it isn't "their environment" anymore. Making KDE apps behave nicely in other environments is definitely not KDE people's priority. The same goes for GNOME, to be honest: I've had some unpleasant time trying to setup applications with GConf while not using GNOME.
While I am can totally understand your case and sympathize with it, I think you're right that KDE is not for you. It's meant to be much more exclusive. It's designed for KDE users, if you will (no irony intended).
Slashdot Mirror
She's not even two yet and I hate pink. Like I said, she stays home with her dad who likes to dress her up like a dinosaur. Where the fuck did she pick up the stereotype that she should prefer the pink shirt to the blue shirt?
I suspect that liking pink is innate to boys and girls alike. I have seen little boys (less than 3yo) go for bright pink objects over any other color. I am led to assume that pink just feels like a vivid, yet soft and pleasant color to us - that is, before we males duly acquire proper male tastes, and grow a strong, healthy distaste for it.
That said, I am quite convinced that there are, on average, innate psychological differences between men and women. It's just that these differences are much less pronounced than the differences between conventional male and female behaviors, and can only be appreciated in a fuzzy, statistical way, not with statements of the form "men prefer A, women prefer B".
Yup, the amount of atheist bigotry and unpleasantness here is incredible. Now in their defense, these people are probably Americans who endure a lot of religious bigotry in their daily lives. They are just trying to fight back, but this doesn't really help at all.
"OMG MICROSOFT IS MAKING MONEY"
Actually, some of the more reasonable /. readers would probably find this a lot less objectionable if it was a case of Microsoft making money by selling Microsoft products.
How about you don't lump us all together as imperialist, culture-bound yahoos?
I have lived in the US and I would never lump Americans together as imperialists. Actually, I wouldn't dream of lumping them together as *anything*. Not a clever thing to do with Americans.
OTOH, the US as a country - meaning the elected government - has imperialist policies and attitude, and has had them for a while now. It is up to US citizens to decide whether they care. In recent decades, the response has been underwhelming.
Exactly. A good rule of thumb: if your "right" requires others to do something for you, it's not a right - it's a service.
That is true of natural rights. But we live in societies where we have elected to grant ourselves many rights that are human constructs. The right to elect our leaders, for one, requires others to do things for us. Maybe you consider that you have a right to basic personal safety, which requires people to maintain a form of law and order.
Or maybe you are the sole inhabitant of a nation-island, in which case I take my comment back.
we don't have the resources to give everyone all the healthcare that they want, when they want it. You have to ration it.
I respectfully disagree with this. The developed world today is more than wealthy enough to provide a broad range of quality healthcare to all its residents, for free. Not all the healthcare people want, but all the basic care they need. Of course, that is a socialist policy, which you are free to disagree with. It is at least partially implemented in many countries today, whose budget deficits are no worse than that of the US. Interestingly, in those countries, unsubsidized private healthcare can be considerably more affordable than in the US.
My point is that rationing healthcare in wealthy countries today is a choice, not a necessity.
Lutheran-Raised Anonymous Coward is right: the Catholic Church was the one who took liberties with the Bible to come up with their own doctrine. The Protestants fought to free themselves of the accumulated Catholic dogma and go back to the biblical roots of Christianity.
In a way, you could credit Protestants for emphasizing personal judgment, and Catholics for de-emphasizing the Bible.
That is certainly true for the desktop market - at least, some segments of it. How well do you think it works for laptops? Compare the price and choices in the OS-free laptop market with the "normal" (i.e. Windows) laptop market. Sure, you can get a Mac too. That makes it a duopoly of sorts.
All right, I concede that there was more rhetoric in that post than substantial argument. Let me explain.
What I mean is, these phrases implicitly belittle the political aspect of every economic issue. We can only vote with our feet if the markets function well, and that only happens with proper regulation (including, but not limited to, antitrust regulation). That, in turn, depends on us voting for the people who will enact such regulation. You know, politicians working for the common good. They are, at the very least, a major theoretical concept.
If the system is skewed (say, by entrenched quasi-monopolies or duopolies, or cartels like the MAFIAA), you can't fight it from inside. You need to change the rules of the game. In principle, democracy means that the people make the rules. Let's be idealistic for a second... isn't it refreshing?
So let me rephrase my previous post in plain language: to say "just take your business elsewhere" is naive and oversimplifying. The public's interests can only be served by a combination of educated consumption (voting with our feet), consumer advocacy, and political awareness as well as activism.
"Vote with your feet", "vote with your wallet"...
I'm sick of hearing that crap. How do you vote with your feet if there is barely any choice in the so-called "marketplace"? And if you vote with your wallet, will that count against the votes of others whose wallets are rather thicker than yours?
All these "vote with" phrases make a mockery of democracy. Here is my suggestion: vote with your vote. I know, it's pretty damn bold.
You have madman in Syria methodically going city to city killing anyone who disagrees with their government policies and the Israeli critics and peace protesters seem to have no problem with that.
Syria is a third world autocracy like (unfortunately) many others. So yes, Israel is generally held to much higher standards than Syria. I hope most people in Israel regard it as a good thing.
Even if everyone is appalled at what's happening in Syria, there is not much they can do about it. The Iraq-style approach doesn't have much appeal anymore.
The homeless guy at the corner of my street also has a theory about rotating universes.
All right, sorry about that. This is really at the intersection of maths and physics, though, but I get your point.
Which goes to say that Goedel was neither a physicist nor a biologist.
This has to be the most overhyped, buzzword-ridden science story I've read in months. As a researcher, I hate to see whatever credibility we have spent on things like this.
Thank you for finally mentioning the numbers! They take a sample of 16 people, split it in two groups of eight, and publish statistical differences between the samples... It's appalling.
A jpg pasted into a document and emailed isn't legally binding in the United States.
May we have a citation for this please?
I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.
That's true! By the way, I've just found the original manuscript of King Lear in my attic. Now the (only authoritative version of) the play is MINE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Placing people on a no-fly list for associating with groups/causes that the state deems "terror-y"?
I think the proper term is terrorish. At least that's what my grandpa says, and he's over 90.
Oh, my. Not long ago, this would have sparked a never-ending distro flame war. Now, the Ubuntu crowd is so large and loud that advocates of other distros don't even try to be heard anymore.
All your questions and more can be answered by reading the damned article.
Your point being? ...
seriously ? Thats your response ? Your too much of an idiot to read a reasonable sentence and understand its meaning ? grow up.
You must be new here. And you meant "That's" and "You're", not "Thats" and "Your".
Politically, the EU is very stable, democratic,
No, it's really not. There's a huge dividing rift between the richer and poorer countries. Furthermore, the weakness of its democratic structures (too many powerful people are appointed, not elected) makes it vulnerable to corruption.
Perhaps the parent meant that individual EU countries are in general stable and democratic.
The biggest reason beside racism and the Holocaust for not liking the Nazis is that the US/SU alliance won the war
The Nazis didn't treat the countries they conquered well at all. They would have been remembered poorly even if the US had stayed out of it, as happens to oppressive conquerors.
True enough, and on the Allies' side, this is largely true of the Soviet Union in the same period. At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union was widely disliked in Central (and parts of Eastern) Europe, but being on the winning side, it still got to bring many of those countries into its sphere of influence. Many residents were *not* happy about that.
Why did the US remain in the war 'till the bitter end?
Uh, because we wanted to win? What, did you expect us to turn around right after the D-day victories and say, "well that was a waste of time?" Staying in the war to the bitter end was really a more normal thing to do......
Unless you can put your ideas into other terms, you truly are not worth listening to.
Er, maybe that last bit was not strictly necessary.
I think it should have been called "Computing Science;" there'd be less confusion.
Indeed, in German and in Romance languages like French and Italian, CS is referred to as 'informatics', which should remove the confusion. Strangely enough though, at this point I think most speakers of those languages have also managed to equate the term with 'stuff that happens on computers', which is kind of true from a purely practical perspective (that is, forgetting that there is a theory behind all that). At least the phrase 'computer science' has the merit of including the word 'science'.
What's wrong with the export to csv option?
Shhhh! Now you've ruined it for him, you insensitive clod! It seemed so clever at the time...
if the KDE guys make their environment behave better when a KDE app is loaded from some other window manager, maybe i'll give it another shot.
Now, this is a problem right there. If you load a KDE app in a different window manager, then it isn't "their environment" anymore. Making KDE apps behave nicely in other environments is definitely not KDE people's priority. The same goes for GNOME, to be honest: I've had some unpleasant time trying to setup applications with GConf while not using GNOME.
While I am can totally understand your case and sympathize with it, I think you're right that KDE is not for you. It's meant to be much more exclusive. It's designed for KDE users, if you will (no irony intended).
My browser has aboriginal, autochthonous Ur-HTML5 support.