I wouldn't suggest that flame fests are new. I'm just suggesting that there used to be more people willing to 'run the numbers'. I never payed much mind to grammar nazis as I have pretty much always been aware that complaints about spelling and grammar are internet speak for "I agree 100% with the content of your post and don't want to admit it, so I will look for a typo instead." It has pretty much always been an acknowledgment that the other party had proven their point.
As with most thing in life, the quality/crap post situation is and always has been shades of gray. It is just a question of where on the gray scale the reader happens to draw their line compared to where the site currently sits.
All that being said, I'm not convinced it is all that bad now.
We are way past 'what can be known' depending on the level of technology you are looking at. Or, maybe we are not even close to what can be known at a different level of technology. After all, it wasn't that long ago that the atom was the base particle and was not made up of smaller parts.
I don't know. One of the big things that originally hooked me was the tendency for people to 'run the numbers' when they had a disagreement with someone else. Now it seems that instead of putting numbers on the page it just degrades into accusations of people watching FOX news.
You think that you are making points against what I said, while in fact, you keep pointing out that my original statement is entirely true.
What women who know they have choice say: "I wouldn't let somebody support me like that, and would leave anybody who tried to force me into that situation."
What men who do not have a choice say: "There is nobody that will support me like that, and leaving a nonexistent person is a physical impossibility."
I saw the same thing with the Mom's groups when my son was born. A single dad tried to join one of the groups my wife belonged to. About half the women started throwing a fit. They deleted their posts off the groups discussion board. Stopped going to play dates. They even went so far as to start making really nasty slanderous comments about the poor guy. Making comments to the effect of "Any man that would want to join this group must be a pervert doing it for sexual reasons." It was truly disgusting.
It is alive and well. It just isn't where our culture usually thinks it is. We have moved into a time that little boys are being beaten down, and it is sad. When women are excluded from groups like your example, the men are called out and told they have done wrong. When men are excluded like the parent poster's example, the men are called out and told they are wrong for thinking that they were worthy of being included. If someone were to dress their 6 year old boy in a shirt that said "Girls are stupid", they would be avoided and pegged as trash. Yet 6 year old girls are regularly dressed in shirts that say "Boys are stupid" and get complements on how cute it is.
And at no point have you been faced with the fact that you may not be able to have children or that any children you have will have to go hungry if you don't earn enough money. Everything you said is exactly what a person who was raised to believe that working was an option would say.
What little girls are taught to think: "I believe in fending for myself"
What little boys are taught to think: "I have to fend for myself or I will starve."
Your culturally dictated belief system blinds you to what is right in front of you. Men are sexually valuable by nature to women as well. It is culture that places men in the purchasing role and women in the selling role. This was established long ago when being able to provide for your genetic line was difficult or impossible while 9 months pregnant. Women needed to withhold sex from men that did not provide for them as a survival technique. That is no longer the case. It is just a carry over from our past.
Nobody rebuilds their foundation to increase the crawl space so that plumbers will have better access. It is delusional to think that it ever happens much less it is common.
Any test that could fit your description is completely flawed. Taking a group of kids that have been environmentally conditioned to behave in a certain way and finding that the environmental conditioning sticks with them for short periods of time even when they are removed from that environment is *NOT* evidence of a biological connection in any way shape or form.
My son does not have a biological imperative to pee in rooms with a stick figure not wearing a dress on the door. Even when he thinks no one is watching, he will still go into the room with a stick figure not wearing a dress on it. In fact, if the only door he sees is one with a stick figure with a dress, he will continue to look for a different door until he finds one that does not have a dress.
You don't read very well. *I* said that women don't do it because it is a dirty job. You then told me I was wrong and the real reason is because it is a dirty job. Actually reading is very helpful in being part of an online discussion.
I see this with all of my peers. They are either oblivious as to why girls pick certain things and boys others, or they believe they know why and use their children for their confirmation bias. All the while, I see every single one of them pushing their children into the predefined sexual roles that society has dictated. Even when they don't think they are doing it themselves, all of the people around them are doing it. Their relatives. The schools. The TVs. It is unavoidable.
Part of that gender message that gets ground into children day in and day out is that males MUST get a good job if they want a good life. females CAN get a good job if they want a good life. As soon as little girls begin to interact with the rest of society, it is made absolutely clear to them that they do not need to provide for themselves. There is always someone else who will do it for them.
Irrelevant of gender, you will get a lower percentage of people that have been told they don't have to work, working hard and taking less than desirable jobs. The fact that women as a group tend to gravitate towards jobs that pay less and require less sacrifice is not surprising. They are not underrepresented in these jobs because of their gender. It is because their gender is under represented in the group that is raised to believe that no one is going to pay their way through life.
It isn't a genetic problem, and the solution for under representation of women in IT isn't to do more of what caused the under representation in the first place.
If you want to see this whole thing really laid bare, look at plumbing. In IT it could be argued that everybody is equal, and thus it must be discrimination. When you look at plumbing, there are jobs were particular genders have a distinct advantage. While there are some jobs that require physical strength so a men as a group have a genetic advantage, in residential plumbing, it is incredibly common for the plumber to need to squeeze through small places. Many houses do not have enough clearance under them for an average sized man to fit. This is a field where equally competent little petite women should really shine. Every plumbing company in the country should have tiny little size 0 women working for them. Do we see this? No. Because tiny little size 0 women don't need to crawl around under dank insect infested crawlspaces. They don't need to literally crawl through human feces. So, they don't.
Again. This isn't a genetic problem, and it isn't an industry problem. It is a cultural problem that starts before the kids can even walk. (Of course, that is only if one considers it a problem at all)
That I will agree with. For most people, once you get past a certain point of software availability, more doesn't matter. I would say that OSX has all the software that most non-technical people need.
In the context of giving them to a non-technical person, it is entirely true. Telling a non-technical person that they can run a Windows only app on their Mac via emulation or dual boot is in practice telling them that they can't do it at all.
For a non-technical person, Mac is more limited in software choices than Windows.
Which is why it is a shame that MS hasn't jumped on this. Of course, people are already getting to where they accept non-MS software on their phones and tablets.
Actually, it is to stop people from setting up businesses that use barter for the express purpose of avoiding taxes. Exactly what these schools seem to be doing.
You get 13 years of Gen ed classes before entering college. If you haven't been able to get educated in 13 years, a few more years are not going to change things. The only reasonable rational for colleges is for specialization.
I don't sell them, and I have found Toshiba to be a very good brand. Acer have worked pretty well for me too. I have never owned a Dell laptop, but HP and Gateway suck.
Both my laptop (Acer) and my wife's (Toshiba) are i5 with Intel graphics. They are fine for casual gaming and more than adequate for everything else.
We are well past the point that the OS is the limiting factor in computer usage, and for most people (which includes the poster's description of his sister) we are well past the point that hardware is the limiting factor. If his sister has money to burn (which it sounds like she just might) she may find the extra cost of a Mac worthwhile. Otherwise, he could just take her down to a Staples and have her pick pretty much any laptop that she likes the look of. It will run fine. It will have all of the drivers pre-installed, and she will be good to go.
This is not for a techie. As much as I love emulation/visualization, it isn't the right choice for most non-technical people. If his sister emulates Windows on OSX he isn't removing Windows problems, he is adding OSX problems.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what system they had. Either way, they would just remote desktop into a VM hosted on the college's system, and use an external mouse or keyboard to do their assignments.
At some point in time, (I hope) people will realize that they don't need a processing powerhouse at every station. They do want lots of stations that are inexpensive. So, hopefully, a home server will pop up that can serve up VMs that are size matched to the client device. All of your data from any of your devices. All of your apps on any of your devices. All of it stored in a box in your laundry room. Heck, just about every modern TV could become a high end workstation without hardware changes.
Unfortunately, the MS Home Server seems to be abandoned by MS. And no one else seems to be picking that perticular torch back up.
First thing you do is figure out if this is something that you even need to worry about. All security is about making it harder to get something than the effort to get it is worth. In homes, some people just use a lock on the front door. Others use a deadbolt. Others Still use as security door. The reality is that a battery operated recipical saw will take you right through the walls of most homes. No one builds their walls out of steel to prevent that simple attack on the house. Why? Because burgelers are not going to take that kind of effort to get in.
That same needs to be looked at with corporate security. Some businesses really do need super high security. Most do not.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't suggest that flame fests are new. I'm just suggesting that there used to be more people willing to 'run the numbers'. I never payed much mind to grammar nazis as I have pretty much always been aware that complaints about spelling and grammar are internet speak for "I agree 100% with the content of your post and don't want to admit it, so I will look for a typo instead." It has pretty much always been an acknowledgment that the other party had proven their point.
As with most thing in life, the quality/crap post situation is and always has been shades of gray. It is just a question of where on the gray scale the reader happens to draw their line compared to where the site currently sits.
All that being said, I'm not convinced it is all that bad now.
We are way past 'what can be known' depending on the level of technology you are looking at. Or, maybe we are not even close to what can be known at a different level of technology. After all, it wasn't that long ago that the atom was the base particle and was not made up of smaller parts.
I don't know. One of the big things that originally hooked me was the tendency for people to 'run the numbers' when they had a disagreement with someone else. Now it seems that instead of putting numbers on the page it just degrades into accusations of people watching FOX news.
You think that you are making points against what I said, while in fact, you keep pointing out that my original statement is entirely true.
What women who know they have choice say: "I wouldn't let somebody support me like that, and would leave anybody who tried to force me into that situation."
What men who do not have a choice say: "There is nobody that will support me like that, and leaving a nonexistent person is a physical impossibility."
I saw the same thing with the Mom's groups when my son was born. A single dad tried to join one of the groups my wife belonged to. About half the women started throwing a fit. They deleted their posts off the groups discussion board. Stopped going to play dates. They even went so far as to start making really nasty slanderous comments about the poor guy. Making comments to the effect of "Any man that would want to join this group must be a pervert doing it for sexual reasons." It was truly disgusting.
It is alive and well. It just isn't where our culture usually thinks it is. We have moved into a time that little boys are being beaten down, and it is sad. When women are excluded from groups like your example, the men are called out and told they have done wrong. When men are excluded like the parent poster's example, the men are called out and told they are wrong for thinking that they were worthy of being included. If someone were to dress their 6 year old boy in a shirt that said "Girls are stupid", they would be avoided and pegged as trash. Yet 6 year old girls are regularly dressed in shirts that say "Boys are stupid" and get complements on how cute it is.
And at no point have you been faced with the fact that you may not be able to have children or that any children you have will have to go hungry if you don't earn enough money. Everything you said is exactly what a person who was raised to believe that working was an option would say.
What little girls are taught to think: "I believe in fending for myself"
What little boys are taught to think: "I have to fend for myself or I will starve."
Your culturally dictated belief system blinds you to what is right in front of you. Men are sexually valuable by nature to women as well. It is culture that places men in the purchasing role and women in the selling role. This was established long ago when being able to provide for your genetic line was difficult or impossible while 9 months pregnant. Women needed to withhold sex from men that did not provide for them as a survival technique. That is no longer the case. It is just a carry over from our past.
Nobody rebuilds their foundation to increase the crawl space so that plumbers will have better access. It is delusional to think that it ever happens much less it is common.
Any test that could fit your description is completely flawed. Taking a group of kids that have been environmentally conditioned to behave in a certain way and finding that the environmental conditioning sticks with them for short periods of time even when they are removed from that environment is *NOT* evidence of a biological connection in any way shape or form.
My son does not have a biological imperative to pee in rooms with a stick figure not wearing a dress on the door. Even when he thinks no one is watching, he will still go into the room with a stick figure not wearing a dress on it. In fact, if the only door he sees is one with a stick figure with a dress, he will continue to look for a different door until he finds one that does not have a dress.
You don't read very well. *I* said that women don't do it because it is a dirty job. You then told me I was wrong and the real reason is because it is a dirty job. Actually reading is very helpful in being part of an online discussion.
If you have not learned to think for yourself in the first 13 years of education, a few more years is not going to make the difference.
I see this with all of my peers. They are either oblivious as to why girls pick certain things and boys others, or they believe they know why and use their children for their confirmation bias. All the while, I see every single one of them pushing their children into the predefined sexual roles that society has dictated. Even when they don't think they are doing it themselves, all of the people around them are doing it. Their relatives. The schools. The TVs. It is unavoidable.
Part of that gender message that gets ground into children day in and day out is that males MUST get a good job if they want a good life. females CAN get a good job if they want a good life. As soon as little girls begin to interact with the rest of society, it is made absolutely clear to them that they do not need to provide for themselves. There is always someone else who will do it for them.
Irrelevant of gender, you will get a lower percentage of people that have been told they don't have to work, working hard and taking less than desirable jobs. The fact that women as a group tend to gravitate towards jobs that pay less and require less sacrifice is not surprising. They are not underrepresented in these jobs because of their gender. It is because their gender is under represented in the group that is raised to believe that no one is going to pay their way through life.
It isn't a genetic problem, and the solution for under representation of women in IT isn't to do more of what caused the under representation in the first place.
If you want to see this whole thing really laid bare, look at plumbing. In IT it could be argued that everybody is equal, and thus it must be discrimination. When you look at plumbing, there are jobs were particular genders have a distinct advantage. While there are some jobs that require physical strength so a men as a group have a genetic advantage, in residential plumbing, it is incredibly common for the plumber to need to squeeze through small places. Many houses do not have enough clearance under them for an average sized man to fit. This is a field where equally competent little petite women should really shine. Every plumbing company in the country should have tiny little size 0 women working for them. Do we see this? No. Because tiny little size 0 women don't need to crawl around under dank insect infested crawlspaces. They don't need to literally crawl through human feces. So, they don't.
Again. This isn't a genetic problem, and it isn't an industry problem. It is a cultural problem that starts before the kids can even walk. (Of course, that is only if one considers it a problem at all)
Because with "cyber" bullying, the nerds are on equal or better footing. We can't have that.
That I will agree with. For most people, once you get past a certain point of software availability, more doesn't matter. I would say that OSX has all the software that most non-technical people need.
In the context of giving them to a non-technical person, it is entirely true. Telling a non-technical person that they can run a Windows only app on their Mac via emulation or dual boot is in practice telling them that they can't do it at all.
For a non-technical person, Mac is more limited in software choices than Windows.
Dual boot is WAY worse for a non-techie than Parallels. Dual boot is a complete non-starter.
Which is why it is a shame that MS hasn't jumped on this. Of course, people are already getting to where they accept non-MS software on their phones and tablets.
Actually, it is to stop people from setting up businesses that use barter for the express purpose of avoiding taxes. Exactly what these schools seem to be doing.
You get 13 years of Gen ed classes before entering college. If you haven't been able to get educated in 13 years, a few more years are not going to change things. The only reasonable rational for colleges is for specialization.
I don't sell them, and I have found Toshiba to be a very good brand. Acer have worked pretty well for me too. I have never owned a Dell laptop, but HP and Gateway suck.
Both my laptop (Acer) and my wife's (Toshiba) are i5 with Intel graphics. They are fine for casual gaming and more than adequate for everything else.
We are well past the point that the OS is the limiting factor in computer usage, and for most people (which includes the poster's description of his sister) we are well past the point that hardware is the limiting factor. If his sister has money to burn (which it sounds like she just might) she may find the extra cost of a Mac worthwhile. Otherwise, he could just take her down to a Staples and have her pick pretty much any laptop that she likes the look of. It will run fine. It will have all of the drivers pre-installed, and she will be good to go.
This is not for a techie. As much as I love emulation/visualization, it isn't the right choice for most non-technical people. If his sister emulates Windows on OSX he isn't removing Windows problems, he is adding OSX problems.
That is the right answer.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what system they had. Either way, they would just remote desktop into a VM hosted on the college's system, and use an external mouse or keyboard to do their assignments.
At some point in time, (I hope) people will realize that they don't need a processing powerhouse at every station. They do want lots of stations that are inexpensive. So, hopefully, a home server will pop up that can serve up VMs that are size matched to the client device. All of your data from any of your devices. All of your apps on any of your devices. All of it stored in a box in your laundry room. Heck, just about every modern TV could become a high end workstation without hardware changes.
Unfortunately, the MS Home Server seems to be abandoned by MS. And no one else seems to be picking that perticular torch back up.
First thing you do is figure out if this is something that you even need to worry about. All security is about making it harder to get something than the effort to get it is worth. In homes, some people just use a lock on the front door. Others use a deadbolt. Others Still use as security door. The reality is that a battery operated recipical saw will take you right through the walls of most homes. No one builds their walls out of steel to prevent that simple attack on the house. Why? Because burgelers are not going to take that kind of effort to get in.
That same needs to be looked at with corporate security. Some businesses really do need super high security. Most do not.