Note that by your logic, we'd have Freedom of the Press as long as the government didn't put more than, say, a 1,000,000% tax on printer's ink (that wouldn't be a "ban", just a tax).
Obvious strawman is obvious. Any reasonable person would see that a 1,000,000% tax on printer's ink is specifically designed to ban freedom of the press. Any reasonable person will also acknowledge that banning assault weapons is not banning access to guns for purposes that do not conflict with public safety.
Oddly enough, the Supremes disagree with you.
Oddly enough, you're wrong. As recently as June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to bear arms; however, "The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution." (citation)
None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were ever intended to be completely unrestricted. None of them. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of speech? Try calling in a bomb threat to local law enforcement. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of religion? Try convincing a jury that you were simply consummating a marriage to your 12-year-old "bride" in God's eyes. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of the press? Ask Julian Assange, who U.S. authorities would love to get his hands on. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of assembly? Watch some videos of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zucotti Park.
There absolutely is such a thing as "too much" freedom--when that freedom begins compromising the freedom of others and because a danger to public safety. The Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms will not be infringed. Gun control does not infringe upon your right to bear arms. Total gun bans do. Learn the difference. Just as you don't have the right to use your freedom of speech to incite a riot, instigate terrorism, slander others, etc., no one--not even the Founding Fathers--ever intended for your right to bear arms to include private citizens acquiring weapons with little or no oversight capable of killing mass numbers of people outside the context of the military engaged in armed conflict.
Will people push this using technologies that come out of the Internet? Sure, just as they push freedom of speech and other freedoms today. However, bear in mind that the harder this envelope is pushed, the more severe will be the backlash from everyday schmoes when there are calls to regulate the crap out of the Internet. So be careful what you wish for, you may just get it, and we'll end up with what a lot of people with various agendas are pushing for today, which is basically a government- and/or corporate-run and censored Internet.
Okay, so if you ARE a plucky underdog being trampled on by a huge, faceless corporation, what the hell are you supposed to do? Just shut up and take it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that thing you just said, big faceless corporations delight in people believing it because then they can do no wrong. If you're an asshole, that's your fault. If we're an asshole, then it's still your fault.
So I'm genuinely curious, how do you, as a consumer, tell the difference? What do you know about this particular circumstance, this particular author, that we don't know that makes you think that she is being disingenuous?
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe she is making a fuss just to get publicity. If so, then by all means, let us know why you think so so that we won't waste our time supporting her. It just seems to me that you're saying that anyone who makes a fuss must just be in it for the publicity, and I strongly disagree.
So your keen observation is that allowing bat-shit crazy to have guns is perfectly okay because, hey, they probably will never hurt anybody with them. Brilliant.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
I can't speak for the OP, but the reason why it scares me is because my grandmother had a gun. She had no idea how to use it, but she kept it loaded under her pillow at night. She was paranoid that someone would come in and try to attack her. I'm not kidding--she was so paranoid that, even with a full set of drapes and blinds on her windows, she used to turn off the light to change clothes at night because she though someone might be peeking through the window. (Why? I guess because nothing attracts peeping toms like an 80-year-old woman changing clothes, I guess. I don't know.)
She once came home and told us a story about how she was at the mall, and a black man followed her out. (Keep in mind that she grew up in pre-segregation South, and yes, she fit the stereotype you can imagine that goes along with that.) It rattled her so badly that when she got to the car, she got her gun out of the glove compartment and held it up so that he knew she was armed, and it worked, because apparently he changed direction to give her car a wide berth. Of course, I'm sitting there thinking that she's pulled a gun on an innocent shopper and that when he saw some crazy old lady pull out a gun, he didn't want to have anything to do with her. It's probably a good thing too, because if he had not been paying attention and walked too close to her car, she probably would have killed or seriously injured him. (Or herself, or at least done some nasty property damage.)
So why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare me? Because I know that there are, practically speaking, absolutely zero controls on who gets guns. There are no requirements for training, no evaluation of responsibility, little to no ability to track where weapons come from if one is used in a crime, and thanks to organizations like the NRA, virtually no control over the types of weapons those law-abiding citizens can own.
I used to be pretty staunchly in favor of banning all guns. These days, my stance is what I consider a bit more practical and well-thought out. I'm not for banning guns completely, but I am for measures such as requiring training and evaluation that has to be periodically repeated before issuing a permit to allow people to legally have guns, implementing methods of tracking guns, requiring all guns sold adhere to certain standards of safety, and restricting the sale and distribution of the types of assault weapons that are designed for killing massive numbers of people quickly. Because the fact is that I'm MUCH more afraid of well-meaning--but stupid and untrained moron--hurting or killing me with a gun than some nutjob opening fire in a theater. My grandmother passed away around 10 years ago so she's no longer a threat, but living with her as a kid was a bit of an exercise in terror, thinking that if I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night I might get mistaken for a burglar and shot. And in my day I've met and known a lot of people like her, people who are grossly irresponsible with guns.
And THAT is why being around law-abiding citizens who have guns scares me.
You are advocating the politically correct version of the thought police, but instead of telling people how they should think.. you are trying to tell people that they cant induce particular thoughts ("offended") in others. How dare I alter someones thoughts to a mode of being offended.. right? How dare I?
Zzzzzt. We're not talking about hypersensitive people here. It is entirely foreseeable for normal people to expect other normal people to be offended by the term "big boobs" in a context in which it clearly does not belong. If you don't believe me, then next time you're at work in a meeting with both women and men, say something like, "We definitely need carefully consider our options going forward. Good ideas are like big boobs, we really need more of them." After you've collected your last paycheck as you're walking out the door, take a little bit of time to consider again the difference between an innocent comment that is taken wrong and a deliberately demeaning and hostile comment that you can be pretty sure will cause offense.
Or put more simply, what you are saying is that if I punch you in the face, it's your own damn fault for feeling the sensation of pain, so really, there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't punch you in the face.
I believe this is far more relevant as to why there are large differences in tech employment than sexist jokes.
Not that I think it will change your mind, because in my experience, most people who say this are biased to the point where they won't accept any evidence to the contrary. But just on the offhand chance that merely didn't know, studies disagree.
The gender divide in math scores is purely cultural, and yes, sexist jokes are definitely part of that culture that is causing the divide. I really hope that you can overcome this notion of women simply being "wired differently," and maybe even help debunk it to others when you run across it.
What you're not getting is that it's not just "harmless fun," and it's not just prudery. It's being an asshole. In case you haven't noticed, women make only 77 to 82 cents on the dollar of men for the same work. They're also passed over more often for jobs than men, especially at higher levels of management. Oh, and of course, there are also orders of magnitude more cases of sexual harassment against women in the workplace than there are for men. (And little hint: It's not because men just aren't reporting those cases, it's because women really are harassed that much more often.) Not to mention that women are the victims of crimes of men more often than men are against women. When was the last time you were walking down the street thinking, "This place is a little seedy, I hope I don't get raped"? Yeah, I didn't think so. When was the last time that someone accused you of "wanting it" because you wanted to dress nicely? Yeah, I didn't think so. I could go on, but I seriously doubt you care.
Point is, if you're in a comedy club and someone makes jokes about women's breasts, while I might think it's tasteless, at least it's in a setting where it's appropriate. If you're talking to some buddies, while I might think you're an asshole for doing so, hey, knock yourself out telling off-color jokes. If you're watching a porno flick or in a female strip club and some lewd comments weren't made about big breasts, something is probably very wrong. If you're willingly watching old reruns of Married With Children, then you really don't have any room to complain about the content if you find it offensive and choose not to stop watching.
But embedding such crudeness in code that is, by its open source nature, destined for mass public use is beyond stupid. It's not "prudery" to expect people to behave with at least some modicum of respect for their fellow coders in such an area. In this context, it's not just "harmless fun." It's demeaning, it's offensive, and it alienates women for no good reason.
What makes the situation ten times worse is that it wasn't even some coder working on his pet project, he was doing so representing his company. As such, these standards don't just apply to him personally, but he most certainly should have realized that he was at least in part affecting the reputation of that company. I still stand by my statement that if I were Microsoft, I would try to find out who it was and fire them; it's not even a close call to me. Those rules aren't there just to make your life miserable; they're there because back in days past, there was nothing stopping people like you who consider sexual harassment just "a little harmless fun" from creating workplaces and public spaces that were extremely hostile to women, so here we are. If you're not going to act like a human being in your private life, which is your prerogative, then by god at least we can make you act like one in your workplace and other places where civil rights have to be respected.
I'll tell you what, if it's just "a little harmless fun," then how about we wait and see if the coder who did it steps forward? I mean, there's no harm, right? So it should be aaaany day now. Of course, he won't do it because there's nothing harmless or fun about what he did, and he knows it. He's just an anonymous little chicken shit taking pot shots at an entire gender buried in code because he doesn't have the guts to say something like that publicly and face the music for it.
I guess it never occurred to you that some of us have mothers, sisters, and wives that have had to endure the indignity of this shit, did it? That maybe it made an indelible impression on us that, "Hey, this isn't right, and I'll call out this jackass behavior when I see it"?
Nah, didn't think so.
It's not guilt, it's anger, you idiot. It's the same reason I call out people for making fun of gay people, or for that matter, making fun of men. Or computer geeks. Or whatever. It doesn't matter. There's no excuse for being a prick to your fellow humans.
If you can't recognize the difference between good-natured fun and being an insensitive clod, then that's your sad, pathetic state of affairs. But don't go blaming it on the victim ("Oh, she's to sensitive to those sexually hostile remarks!") or someone, whether male, female, or androgynous Martian, defending a gender from unwarranted idiocy.
What I find so depressing is how far down I had to look in this thread of posts before I found an intelligent reply to the issue at hand. Folks like to pretend like it was just a harmless joke, and then they sit around and scratch their heads wondering why more women aren't in IT fields when there's such a constant stream of juvenile hostility towards them.
I'm a male, but to me, it's just a matter of respect for other people. Some people have it, but as this shows, there are still a lot of people who don't. It's one thing when you're sitting around with your buddies and someone makes an off-color remark. It's an entirely different level of stupidity when you try to propagate your idiot joke publicly.
This probably sounds harsh, but if I were Microsoft, I'd try to find the guy who did it and fire him. Some might argue this is an overreaction, but to me, it would be a matter of company image. I'd want to make it crystal clear that these kinds of shenanigans are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
Because it's not that simple. I can't explain it, you just have to experience it. You're sitting there thinking, "I don't see any tape or other connection between this box and the sleeve, but when I push here, the box won't slide out." I'm telling you, I laughed the whole way through that video because those people--that was me last night. Every ounce of common sense--and looking and testing--tells you that it shouldn't be that hard, yet in defiance of all logic, it was. I think Asus/Google invented some new force of nature.
But yeah, there most definitely were two ??? steps: 1.5 and 2.5.
I have to admit, I was laughing so hard at the video that I was crying. I swear, that was me last night. "What the--!!? I don't see any tape, but I can't get the box out. Am I missing something? Crap!..."
Still, now that I've got it out of the box, I'm gleeful. It's a nice tablet.
"TPC estimates show that 61 percent of those that owed no federal income tax in a given year are working households. These people do pay payroll taxes as well as federal excise taxes, and, as noted, state and local taxes.
Ergo, the statement that "approx 49% of the US citizens that pay 0 federal tax" is not just a gross misrepresentation in leaving out state and local taxes, it's an outright lie.
There's a pretty good likelihood that they're also paying into the Social Security system as well as paying federal taxes on things like gasoline, telephone service, etc. And while you completely ignore things like state and local taxes, the poor are keenly feeling the sting of sales taxes that, in some places, push upwards of 10% even on necessities like food and clothing--a regressive tax that impacts them far more harshly than the rich.
So yeah, take your "49% pay no taxes" bullshit to someone more sympathetic. I'm sure Mitt Romney will lend you an ear to cry to.
Okay if that's what you honestly believe, that you're going to be killed either way, then why not choose the path that actually works to change things?
Did you ever actually look for the Linux laptops on Dell's web site? I did, and it wasn't like they plastered them on the home page. It's not like it was even a choice when you were configuring your system. You had to go to a special sub-site with few or no links from other pages. You really had to know where it was to get to it.
Trust me, people weren't buying Linux machines by accident.
There are very positive ways to effect change without being killed. In fact, I believe that most ways that involve you getting killed will actually do more harm to your cause than good, as most people will just view you as a terrorist nutjob. As has been pointed out, you seem to have embraced a false dichotomy.
I take it you weren't. A small group of irate people with zero support can cause massive problems for the federal government? So what happens when half the houses in a region go Ruby Ridge? Then you segue to Civil War status. And there we see that a group of states can indeed give the federal government a run for the money.
So did you notice the part where the federal government won in each and every case? That afterwards, there was exactly zero meaningful change, except possibly to push the pendulum even further in the direction of unfettered federal power?
As opposed to, I dunno, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.? Yeah, all of those weapons he was stockpiling sure helped shake things up. And all of those 60s hippies who were so gung ho about engaging in armed conflict really made the difference in stopping the Vietnam War. Wow, remember that bloody clash when the students at Kent State started firing back at police? Even today in, say, the struggle of gay people much much recent success to gain acceptance in society, I can't help but notice how it finally came about when they started espousing arming themselves to defend their rights.
Except... Oh yeah, right! None of those things happened! All of those fundamental shifts in how government has changed were accomplished through non-violent campaigns to win the hearts and minds of the American people.
Look, I know it's fun to romanticize the Revolutionary War, as if that's the One and Only Way to solve government oppression. Maybe you missed out on the history of things like 1) England was across the Atlantic Ocean, which posed a significant logistical disadvantage, 2) England was also mired in conflict with France at the time, and 3) England didn't have a massive arsenal of modern weaponry to use against the colonists. Yes, we won, but anyone who doesn't recognize that such an example is practically useless in today's world is an idiot.
Well, don't complain when they come and get you because you choose to do nothing. And they will come to get you. No one is safe.
As noted above, I didn't say "choose to do nothing." In fact, I specifically told you how change can come about. Sounds to me like you are the one who has given up, effectively choosing to do nothing.
Or, I'm sorry, did you think that posting messages on Slashdot was actually going to lead to some meaningful outcome? That if enough Congressmen, judges, and the President just read your comment, they'd finally come to their senses?
Sure I do. It means you make money by having money, and that having money is worth more than working. This is why investors pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than workers. The idea being a pile of money is worth more than the labor of the people who are actually making stuff.
You just made my day, knowing that there's someone else out there who "gets it." It is a source of endless frustration to me, the notion that a lot people out there have, that making money off of having money should be taxed at a lower rate than actually working. It drives me friggin' nuts when this is pitched as "class warfare" or "wealth envy." It is not wealth envy to expect people to pay at least the same tax rate--possibly even more--on money made off of having money versus actually working for it.
Yes, I do believe that there's class warfare going on, but it's not the lower- or middle class that's instigating it; it's the wealthy who are constantly looking for new ways to get out of paying taxes, getting "bailouts", getting subsidies, all the while complaining about the audacity of a poor person wanting health care.
I know I'll probably be modded down as Flamebait, and truth be known, I probably should be because I know it's a touchy topic. Still, I wanted you to know that you are very, very right and I wish there were more people out there who recognized how insane, unethical, and unsustainable the capital gains tax rate is. (Meanwhile, some people are actually pushing for it to be zero, go figure.)
Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.
Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate? Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?
I always have to laugh when I see this "We might need to fight the government!" argument people make about the Second Amendment. If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces. The only way it would ever happen is for individuals that make up the police forces (that is, the police, National Guard, Coast Guard, and other domestic security agencies) to be on your side.
You would be "removed" before you ever got to the point where you could seriously fight the government. If you're lucky, that means you'd be shipped somewhere like Guantanamo Bay (or more likely, extraordinary rendered to some godforsaken hellhole where they torture people).
If you're going to change the government, you're going to have to do it by changing the hearts and minds of the U.S. citizenry to elect people who are willing to change the laws and give up some of the power the State has accumulated over the centuries. Not an easy task, I'll grant you, and many people believe that that will never happen. But if not, well, you're going to have to accept what we're stuck with today because armed revolution is not, nor will it ever be, the answer.
You are exactly right. Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in cases like this. It would not surprise me at all for the prosecutors to say, "Okay, we'll take you up on that!" then arrest him and throw him in jail as soon as his plane lands. If this guy is smart, he won't set foot anywhere near the United States or a U.S. extradition-friendly country. They can and will lie out of their asses to get him.
I didn't say that they are obliged to be an asshole, I was just pointing out that they have the tools to be an asshole if they choose to do so, and that's just what they're doing. Those same tools are also being used by other companies as well, and even if Apple changes, either by choice or by circumstance, there will be no shortage of other companies willing and able to use those tools. If we take the tools away, then we solve the problem permanently.
I was in this boat. I was never a die hard Apple fan, but I did like their products. I had a MacBook Pro, an iPhone, an iPad, and two different models of iPod. Eventually, I just got tired of it. I got tired of the expense, I got tired of the smug "Just Works" banter even though I constantly had problems keeping everything synced up, I got tired of being told that I don't have rights to play such-and-such on so-en-so device, and so on.
The straw that broke the camel's back was when I decided I wanted to write a little iOS app and applied to the Apple developer program. I sent my application and my $99. They sent me an e-mail saying they needed proof of my identity. I didn't like that--what the hell difference does it make?--but went ahead and sent them a copy of my driver license with the license number blacked out. (It's none of their damn business what my license number is.) They sent me another e-mail saying they wanted an unaltered copy of my id, and it has to be notarized. That was around the same time that a bunch of stories were hitting Slashdot about developers complaining about how long it was taking apps to be approved, about Google Voice getting smacked down, and Apple demanding that all of its apps be developed in Objective C.
At that point, I'd had enough. I demanded by $99 back in a note telling them I'd decided to develop for Android instead and sold my MacBook Pro. I held on to my iPhone until the contract ran out, and last December, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which which I have been absolutely giddy--it's a much better device, in my opinion. I still have the physical iOS devices (the iPhone and iPad) that I use to make sure web sites I work on work in iOS's Safari browser, but at this point, I'm not looking back.
Apple lost a customer and a developer over their shenanigans, and furthermore, I recommend against buying Apple to my friends and family. I still think the company is very innovative and they have top-notch design teams. They're able to accomplish a lot of amazing things. But other companies these days are accomplishing amazing things too, and in the end, it's just not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there limits? Yes.
Well, I'm glad you got at least one thing right in the sermon.
Note that by your logic, we'd have Freedom of the Press as long as the government didn't put more than, say, a 1,000,000% tax on printer's ink (that wouldn't be a "ban", just a tax).
Obvious strawman is obvious. Any reasonable person would see that a 1,000,000% tax on printer's ink is specifically designed to ban freedom of the press. Any reasonable person will also acknowledge that banning assault weapons is not banning access to guns for purposes that do not conflict with public safety.
Oddly enough, the Supremes disagree with you.
Oddly enough, you're wrong. As recently as June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to bear arms; however, "The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution." (citation)
None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were ever intended to be completely unrestricted. None of them. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of speech? Try calling in a bomb threat to local law enforcement. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of religion? Try convincing a jury that you were simply consummating a marriage to your 12-year-old "bride" in God's eyes. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of the press? Ask Julian Assange, who U.S. authorities would love to get his hands on. Do you think you have unfettered freedom of assembly? Watch some videos of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zucotti Park.
There absolutely is such a thing as "too much" freedom--when that freedom begins compromising the freedom of others and because a danger to public safety. The Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms will not be infringed. Gun control does not infringe upon your right to bear arms. Total gun bans do. Learn the difference. Just as you don't have the right to use your freedom of speech to incite a riot, instigate terrorism, slander others, etc., no one--not even the Founding Fathers--ever intended for your right to bear arms to include private citizens acquiring weapons with little or no oversight capable of killing mass numbers of people outside the context of the military engaged in armed conflict.
Will people push this using technologies that come out of the Internet? Sure, just as they push freedom of speech and other freedoms today. However, bear in mind that the harder this envelope is pushed, the more severe will be the backlash from everyday schmoes when there are calls to regulate the crap out of the Internet. So be careful what you wish for, you may just get it, and we'll end up with what a lot of people with various agendas are pushing for today, which is basically a government- and/or corporate-run and censored Internet.
Okay, so if you ARE a plucky underdog being trampled on by a huge, faceless corporation, what the hell are you supposed to do? Just shut up and take it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that thing you just said, big faceless corporations delight in people believing it because then they can do no wrong. If you're an asshole, that's your fault. If we're an asshole, then it's still your fault.
So I'm genuinely curious, how do you, as a consumer, tell the difference? What do you know about this particular circumstance, this particular author, that we don't know that makes you think that she is being disingenuous?
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe she is making a fuss just to get publicity. If so, then by all means, let us know why you think so so that we won't waste our time supporting her. It just seems to me that you're saying that anyone who makes a fuss must just be in it for the publicity, and I strongly disagree.
So your keen observation is that allowing bat-shit crazy to have guns is perfectly okay because, hey, they probably will never hurt anybody with them. Brilliant.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
I can't speak for the OP, but the reason why it scares me is because my grandmother had a gun. She had no idea how to use it, but she kept it loaded under her pillow at night. She was paranoid that someone would come in and try to attack her. I'm not kidding--she was so paranoid that, even with a full set of drapes and blinds on her windows, she used to turn off the light to change clothes at night because she though someone might be peeking through the window. (Why? I guess because nothing attracts peeping toms like an 80-year-old woman changing clothes, I guess. I don't know.)
She once came home and told us a story about how she was at the mall, and a black man followed her out. (Keep in mind that she grew up in pre-segregation South, and yes, she fit the stereotype you can imagine that goes along with that.) It rattled her so badly that when she got to the car, she got her gun out of the glove compartment and held it up so that he knew she was armed, and it worked, because apparently he changed direction to give her car a wide berth. Of course, I'm sitting there thinking that she's pulled a gun on an innocent shopper and that when he saw some crazy old lady pull out a gun, he didn't want to have anything to do with her. It's probably a good thing too, because if he had not been paying attention and walked too close to her car, she probably would have killed or seriously injured him. (Or herself, or at least done some nasty property damage.)
So why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare me? Because I know that there are, practically speaking, absolutely zero controls on who gets guns. There are no requirements for training, no evaluation of responsibility, little to no ability to track where weapons come from if one is used in a crime, and thanks to organizations like the NRA, virtually no control over the types of weapons those law-abiding citizens can own.
I used to be pretty staunchly in favor of banning all guns. These days, my stance is what I consider a bit more practical and well-thought out. I'm not for banning guns completely, but I am for measures such as requiring training and evaluation that has to be periodically repeated before issuing a permit to allow people to legally have guns, implementing methods of tracking guns, requiring all guns sold adhere to certain standards of safety, and restricting the sale and distribution of the types of assault weapons that are designed for killing massive numbers of people quickly. Because the fact is that I'm MUCH more afraid of well-meaning--but stupid and untrained moron--hurting or killing me with a gun than some nutjob opening fire in a theater. My grandmother passed away around 10 years ago so she's no longer a threat, but living with her as a kid was a bit of an exercise in terror, thinking that if I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night I might get mistaken for a burglar and shot. And in my day I've met and known a lot of people like her, people who are grossly irresponsible with guns.
And THAT is why being around law-abiding citizens who have guns scares me.
You are advocating the politically correct version of the thought police, but instead of telling people how they should think.. you are trying to tell people that they cant induce particular thoughts ("offended") in others. How dare I alter someones thoughts to a mode of being offended.. right? How dare I?
Zzzzzt. We're not talking about hypersensitive people here. It is entirely foreseeable for normal people to expect other normal people to be offended by the term "big boobs" in a context in which it clearly does not belong. If you don't believe me, then next time you're at work in a meeting with both women and men, say something like, "We definitely need carefully consider our options going forward. Good ideas are like big boobs, we really need more of them." After you've collected your last paycheck as you're walking out the door, take a little bit of time to consider again the difference between an innocent comment that is taken wrong and a deliberately demeaning and hostile comment that you can be pretty sure will cause offense.
Or put more simply, what you are saying is that if I punch you in the face, it's your own damn fault for feeling the sensation of pain, so really, there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't punch you in the face.
I believe this is far more relevant as to why there are large differences in tech employment than sexist jokes.
Not that I think it will change your mind, because in my experience, most people who say this are biased to the point where they won't accept any evidence to the contrary. But just on the offhand chance that merely didn't know, studies disagree.
The gender divide in math scores is purely cultural, and yes, sexist jokes are definitely part of that culture that is causing the divide. I really hope that you can overcome this notion of women simply being "wired differently," and maybe even help debunk it to others when you run across it.
What you're not getting is that it's not just "harmless fun," and it's not just prudery. It's being an asshole. In case you haven't noticed, women make only 77 to 82 cents on the dollar of men for the same work. They're also passed over more often for jobs than men, especially at higher levels of management. Oh, and of course, there are also orders of magnitude more cases of sexual harassment against women in the workplace than there are for men. (And little hint: It's not because men just aren't reporting those cases, it's because women really are harassed that much more often.) Not to mention that women are the victims of crimes of men more often than men are against women. When was the last time you were walking down the street thinking, "This place is a little seedy, I hope I don't get raped"? Yeah, I didn't think so. When was the last time that someone accused you of "wanting it" because you wanted to dress nicely? Yeah, I didn't think so. I could go on, but I seriously doubt you care.
Point is, if you're in a comedy club and someone makes jokes about women's breasts, while I might think it's tasteless, at least it's in a setting where it's appropriate. If you're talking to some buddies, while I might think you're an asshole for doing so, hey, knock yourself out telling off-color jokes. If you're watching a porno flick or in a female strip club and some lewd comments weren't made about big breasts, something is probably very wrong. If you're willingly watching old reruns of Married With Children, then you really don't have any room to complain about the content if you find it offensive and choose not to stop watching.
But embedding such crudeness in code that is, by its open source nature, destined for mass public use is beyond stupid. It's not "prudery" to expect people to behave with at least some modicum of respect for their fellow coders in such an area. In this context, it's not just "harmless fun." It's demeaning, it's offensive, and it alienates women for no good reason.
What makes the situation ten times worse is that it wasn't even some coder working on his pet project, he was doing so representing his company. As such, these standards don't just apply to him personally, but he most certainly should have realized that he was at least in part affecting the reputation of that company. I still stand by my statement that if I were Microsoft, I would try to find out who it was and fire them; it's not even a close call to me. Those rules aren't there just to make your life miserable; they're there because back in days past, there was nothing stopping people like you who consider sexual harassment just "a little harmless fun" from creating workplaces and public spaces that were extremely hostile to women, so here we are. If you're not going to act like a human being in your private life, which is your prerogative, then by god at least we can make you act like one in your workplace and other places where civil rights have to be respected.
I'll tell you what, if it's just "a little harmless fun," then how about we wait and see if the coder who did it steps forward? I mean, there's no harm, right? So it should be aaaany day now. Of course, he won't do it because there's nothing harmless or fun about what he did, and he knows it. He's just an anonymous little chicken shit taking pot shots at an entire gender buried in code because he doesn't have the guts to say something like that publicly and face the music for it.
I guess it never occurred to you that some of us have mothers, sisters, and wives that have had to endure the indignity of this shit, did it? That maybe it made an indelible impression on us that, "Hey, this isn't right, and I'll call out this jackass behavior when I see it"?
Nah, didn't think so.
It's not guilt, it's anger, you idiot. It's the same reason I call out people for making fun of gay people, or for that matter, making fun of men. Or computer geeks. Or whatever. It doesn't matter. There's no excuse for being a prick to your fellow humans.
If you can't recognize the difference between good-natured fun and being an insensitive clod, then that's your sad, pathetic state of affairs. But don't go blaming it on the victim ("Oh, she's to sensitive to those sexually hostile remarks!") or someone, whether male, female, or androgynous Martian, defending a gender from unwarranted idiocy.
What I find so depressing is how far down I had to look in this thread of posts before I found an intelligent reply to the issue at hand. Folks like to pretend like it was just a harmless joke, and then they sit around and scratch their heads wondering why more women aren't in IT fields when there's such a constant stream of juvenile hostility towards them.
I'm a male, but to me, it's just a matter of respect for other people. Some people have it, but as this shows, there are still a lot of people who don't. It's one thing when you're sitting around with your buddies and someone makes an off-color remark. It's an entirely different level of stupidity when you try to propagate your idiot joke publicly.
This probably sounds harsh, but if I were Microsoft, I'd try to find the guy who did it and fire him. Some might argue this is an overreaction, but to me, it would be a matter of company image. I'd want to make it crystal clear that these kinds of shenanigans are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
Because it's not that simple. I can't explain it, you just have to experience it. You're sitting there thinking, "I don't see any tape or other connection between this box and the sleeve, but when I push here, the box won't slide out." I'm telling you, I laughed the whole way through that video because those people--that was me last night. Every ounce of common sense--and looking and testing--tells you that it shouldn't be that hard, yet in defiance of all logic, it was. I think Asus/Google invented some new force of nature.
But yeah, there most definitely were two ??? steps: 1.5 and 2.5.
I have to admit, I was laughing so hard at the video that I was crying. I swear, that was me last night. "What the--!!? I don't see any tape, but I can't get the box out. Am I missing something? Crap!..."
Still, now that I've got it out of the box, I'm gleeful. It's a nice tablet.
"TPC estimates show that 61 percent of those that owed no federal income tax in a given year are working households. These people do pay payroll taxes as well as federal excise taxes, and, as noted, state and local taxes.
Ergo, the statement that "approx 49% of the US citizens that pay 0 federal tax" is not just a gross misrepresentation in leaving out state and local taxes, it's an outright lie.
There's a pretty good likelihood that they're also paying into the Social Security system as well as paying federal taxes on things like gasoline, telephone service, etc. And while you completely ignore things like state and local taxes, the poor are keenly feeling the sting of sales taxes that, in some places, push upwards of 10% even on necessities like food and clothing--a regressive tax that impacts them far more harshly than the rich.
So yeah, take your "49% pay no taxes" bullshit to someone more sympathetic. I'm sure Mitt Romney will lend you an ear to cry to.
Tell that to all the martyrs throughout history.
Okay if that's what you honestly believe, that you're going to be killed either way, then why not choose the path that actually works to change things?
Did you ever actually look for the Linux laptops on Dell's web site? I did, and it wasn't like they plastered them on the home page. It's not like it was even a choice when you were configuring your system. You had to go to a special sub-site with few or no links from other pages. You really had to know where it was to get to it.
Trust me, people weren't buying Linux machines by accident.
How about that being a lie?
There are very positive ways to effect change without being killed. In fact, I believe that most ways that involve you getting killed will actually do more harm to your cause than good, as most people will just view you as a terrorist nutjob. As has been pointed out, you seem to have embraced a false dichotomy.
I take it you weren't. A small group of irate people with zero support can cause massive problems for the federal government? So what happens when half the houses in a region go Ruby Ridge? Then you segue to Civil War status. And there we see that a group of states can indeed give the federal government a run for the money.
So did you notice the part where the federal government won in each and every case? That afterwards, there was exactly zero meaningful change, except possibly to push the pendulum even further in the direction of unfettered federal power?
As opposed to, I dunno, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.? Yeah, all of those weapons he was stockpiling sure helped shake things up. And all of those 60s hippies who were so gung ho about engaging in armed conflict really made the difference in stopping the Vietnam War. Wow, remember that bloody clash when the students at Kent State started firing back at police? Even today in, say, the struggle of gay people much much recent success to gain acceptance in society, I can't help but notice how it finally came about when they started espousing arming themselves to defend their rights.
Except... Oh yeah, right! None of those things happened! All of those fundamental shifts in how government has changed were accomplished through non-violent campaigns to win the hearts and minds of the American people.
Look, I know it's fun to romanticize the Revolutionary War, as if that's the One and Only Way to solve government oppression. Maybe you missed out on the history of things like 1) England was across the Atlantic Ocean, which posed a significant logistical disadvantage, 2) England was also mired in conflict with France at the time, and 3) England didn't have a massive arsenal of modern weaponry to use against the colonists. Yes, we won, but anyone who doesn't recognize that such an example is practically useless in today's world is an idiot.
Well, don't complain when they come and get you because you choose to do nothing. And they will come to get you. No one is safe.
As noted above, I didn't say "choose to do nothing." In fact, I specifically told you how change can come about. Sounds to me like you are the one who has given up, effectively choosing to do nothing.
Or, I'm sorry, did you think that posting messages on Slashdot was actually going to lead to some meaningful outcome? That if enough Congressmen, judges, and the President just read your comment, they'd finally come to their senses?
Sure I do. It means you make money by having money, and that having money is worth more than working. This is why investors pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than workers. The idea being a pile of money is worth more than the labor of the people who are actually making stuff.
You just made my day, knowing that there's someone else out there who "gets it." It is a source of endless frustration to me, the notion that a lot people out there have, that making money off of having money should be taxed at a lower rate than actually working. It drives me friggin' nuts when this is pitched as "class warfare" or "wealth envy." It is not wealth envy to expect people to pay at least the same tax rate--possibly even more--on money made off of having money versus actually working for it.
Yes, I do believe that there's class warfare going on, but it's not the lower- or middle class that's instigating it; it's the wealthy who are constantly looking for new ways to get out of paying taxes, getting "bailouts", getting subsidies, all the while complaining about the audacity of a poor person wanting health care.
I know I'll probably be modded down as Flamebait, and truth be known, I probably should be because I know it's a touchy topic. Still, I wanted you to know that you are very, very right and I wish there were more people out there who recognized how insane, unethical, and unsustainable the capital gains tax rate is. (Meanwhile, some people are actually pushing for it to be zero, go figure.)
Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.
Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate? Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?
I always have to laugh when I see this "We might need to fight the government!" argument people make about the Second Amendment. If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces. The only way it would ever happen is for individuals that make up the police forces (that is, the police, National Guard, Coast Guard, and other domestic security agencies) to be on your side.
You would be "removed" before you ever got to the point where you could seriously fight the government. If you're lucky, that means you'd be shipped somewhere like Guantanamo Bay (or more likely, extraordinary rendered to some godforsaken hellhole where they torture people).
If you're going to change the government, you're going to have to do it by changing the hearts and minds of the U.S. citizenry to elect people who are willing to change the laws and give up some of the power the State has accumulated over the centuries. Not an easy task, I'll grant you, and many people believe that that will never happen. But if not, well, you're going to have to accept what we're stuck with today because armed revolution is not, nor will it ever be, the answer.
You are exactly right. Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in cases like this. It would not surprise me at all for the prosecutors to say, "Okay, we'll take you up on that!" then arrest him and throw him in jail as soon as his plane lands. If this guy is smart, he won't set foot anywhere near the United States or a U.S. extradition-friendly country. They can and will lie out of their asses to get him.
I didn't say that they are obliged to be an asshole, I was just pointing out that they have the tools to be an asshole if they choose to do so, and that's just what they're doing. Those same tools are also being used by other companies as well, and even if Apple changes, either by choice or by circumstance, there will be no shortage of other companies willing and able to use those tools. If we take the tools away, then we solve the problem permanently.
I was in this boat. I was never a die hard Apple fan, but I did like their products. I had a MacBook Pro, an iPhone, an iPad, and two different models of iPod. Eventually, I just got tired of it. I got tired of the expense, I got tired of the smug "Just Works" banter even though I constantly had problems keeping everything synced up, I got tired of being told that I don't have rights to play such-and-such on so-en-so device, and so on.
The straw that broke the camel's back was when I decided I wanted to write a little iOS app and applied to the Apple developer program. I sent my application and my $99. They sent me an e-mail saying they needed proof of my identity. I didn't like that--what the hell difference does it make?--but went ahead and sent them a copy of my driver license with the license number blacked out. (It's none of their damn business what my license number is.) They sent me another e-mail saying they wanted an unaltered copy of my id, and it has to be notarized. That was around the same time that a bunch of stories were hitting Slashdot about developers complaining about how long it was taking apps to be approved, about Google Voice getting smacked down, and Apple demanding that all of its apps be developed in Objective C.
At that point, I'd had enough. I demanded by $99 back in a note telling them I'd decided to develop for Android instead and sold my MacBook Pro. I held on to my iPhone until the contract ran out, and last December, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which which I have been absolutely giddy--it's a much better device, in my opinion. I still have the physical iOS devices (the iPhone and iPad) that I use to make sure web sites I work on work in iOS's Safari browser, but at this point, I'm not looking back.
Apple lost a customer and a developer over their shenanigans, and furthermore, I recommend against buying Apple to my friends and family. I still think the company is very innovative and they have top-notch design teams. They're able to accomplish a lot of amazing things. But other companies these days are accomplishing amazing things too, and in the end, it's just not worth it.