You are clearly not on the right lists. Believe me, once your number gets on one of those lists, and you're getting half a dozen calls a day from random companies, all intent on taking money off you and wasting your time, you'll think differently over what is "necessary".
You may even find your opinions on capital punishment suddenly become a whole lot more medieval.
In that case he should have said MY brain. But he didn't. He addressed his readers as being exclusively male. Because, you know, there's no women here, is there?
I don't know who you thought was freaking out, but if some one wrote about our brains looking different from a man's I would wonder who the hell they are including in this "our".
When you are addressing your reader it is impolite to assume you know their gender, unless you want to specifically imply that you are only addressing the boys. This kind of attitude is exactly the problem the article is about.
Your outrage
If I was outraged I would, in time honored internet fashion, use exclamation points and CAPITALS. Are you new here?
So now saying "Let them do whatever they enjoy"(paraphrased) is patronizing?
Yes, it is. We are not talking about children. We are talking about adults who, naturally, can do whatever they want. No-one gets to "let" them. Especially addressed in a tone like a bemused father.
Asimov was a genius. Not a brilliant writer, but a genius all the same. He was best at short stories, where he could get an idea across quickly. But I find his novels by-the-numbers and tedious. Too many wooden discussions going on that repeat themselves in order to hammer a point home. And he never managed to write a female character that wasn't a two dimensional cypher.
But it doesn't surprise me that this essay is remarkably accurate.
You have some good points, but do you realise that half the problem is the male-centric thinking your post is filled with?
Does a woman's brain look the same as ours on a CAT scan?
Yes. Because we are both human. Oh... by "ours" you mean "men's". I didn't realise this was a men only discussion, no gals allowed.
So why in the hell do we have to treat little Sally like she is just Jimmy without a penis?
Actually, the trick is to treat both Sally & Jimmy like they are people, rather than reference manhood as if it was the base standard. Some people have a talent and a preference for working with computers, most people don't. Everything you have to say about most woman applies equally to most men.
BTW, the fact that Sally is 'little', whereas Jimmy isn't, may betray more about your thinking than you intended.
but hey I'm not a woman and if it makes 'em happy? More power to 'em.
Heh, got to let the little women have their fun, don't we?
But then give a an example of prison rape joke that in your opinion does not trivialize and victimize.
That would be hard to do, but not impossible. It could be something about tough-guy internet vigilantes, who spend rather a lot of time fantasizing about the retribution a criminal may get in prison. It could comment on some people's expectation of a fair and civilised society and judicial system, while still being ok with sexual assault being an unofficial part of that. But it would take a better comedian than me to come up with something truly funny.
The difference is that Windows 8 is an end-user consumer product that people have parted actually money for. The reasonable expectation is that is should work as is. Their home user base doesn't want to spend time customizing, they just want it to work. Their corporate user base want something that is stable, standard and easy to maintain. Core dependency on a third party add-on that may break with the next security patch, written by a company that may vanish, (however unlikely both scenarios may be) is not good.
But Microsoft aren't completely stupid. They're killing off the start menu for a reason, not just to annoy people. That reason is almost certainly to do with Microsoft's desire to push people towards Metro and, through that, their App Market. They want the same kind of cash cow that Apple has. This is all sound policy for Microsoft, but not for their users. They just need to pull it off without everyone leaving the Windows franchise. It would take a whole lot for Microsoft to mess this up, but it's still a possibility.
He's developed an interface that removes annoying Facebook shit. A third-party wants to buy it and put their annoying shit in instead. Kind of defeats the purpose. Who is going to use it if all it's giving you more of the same, just a different company?
Your interpretation makes anything funny, a trivialization
Your analysis is incorrect. I said "Amongst the bad [things you can accomplish with a joke] is trivialising". No where do I say, or imply, that all jokes trivialise.
Indeed. Comedy is a powerful and many faceted thing. You can accomplish many things with a joke, good and bad. Amongst the bad is trivialising and victimising the subject. The acceptability of a joke doesn't depend on its subject matter, but on its content and intent.
Where's the social/political commentary in the "don't drop the soap in prison" joke? It seems to me to be all about trivialising rape and normalising it as an acceptable (if not encouraged) part of the prison system. That makes it reprehensible and, just as bad, not funny.
Yup. Happens to me. People have good intentions, but they're endorsing me for things that they think I do, but I don't. Just another facet of being a techie, a lot of your colleagues only have the sketchiest of ideas of how you accomplish things.
Well if you're going to do that, you may as well email it direct to the NSA. Cut out the middle-man. I'm sure Governments would love it if everyone took your advice. It would do away with all the tedious waiting around in airports. They can grab your data without even leaving the office.
take the family photo album
Those photos will come in very handy, now that anti-terrorism laws extend to the family of those who report on security issues. It'll help identify the people you are conspiring with.
I used this autogenerated video already for my study of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
That's how I know about his brave fight against a sea monster called Fortune, despite having come under heavy fire from arrows and sling shots.
Strange that they always cut that bit out of the film adaptations, I thought it was the most exciting part of the play, even though it didn't seem to make much sense.
I wasn't referring to Americans as stupid. The diary analogy was a response to the analogy by the US Government (personified by Obama), who apparently don't understand what the fuss is all about. And they aren't stupid either, they just think they know best and everyone should just shut up and trust them.
I don't think anyone in the public (American or globally) needs it explained to them what "they are taking a copy of all your emails, just because they can" means, or why it should make them uncomfortable.
It must be tough having so many TV services and so many viewing options. And, to top it all, you have to have two DVRs as well! It's more than any one person should have to bear!
Time-shifting Breaking Bad episodes is a basic human right that should available to all, on one box, without too many confusing cables plugged into the back of your TV. In the name of humanity, people!
None of your examples are requirements of capitalism functioning, so I don't follow their relevance. Rather, they are ways of exploiting weaknesses in capitalism.
What is a requirement of pure capitalism (if that's what we're aspiring to) is that you pay your own way, rather than sponging off everyone else.
I see it as my civic duty to pirate as many tv shows as possible to demonstrate the flaws in the old content distribution monopolies model.
Interesting excuse. I seem to remember the same bankers you referred to using the same. They were "demonstrating" flaws in the system. Not their fault they were there to be used. Pure coincidence that it benefited them at the expense of others. Is that who you take your lead from?
Seems more like you want the output of an industry, but don't want any truck with how that industry works financially. Keep your principles, and your download. May I say, on behalf of society, thank you for all your sacrifices for all our benefit.
An analogy isn't needed because this isn't similar to taking a copy of someone's private documents. Someone who should be able to trust you. This is exactly the same thing.
If someone has a hard time understanding why NSA might anger people, then they're not going to understand the "diary" analogy explaining it either. It's hard to imagine anyone that stupid, but I think it's easier to picture it not as a case of ignorance, but of vastly inflated sense of self-importance and disregard for others.
You have to agree it's a compelling argument, if you're selfish and can fool yourself with the "they're all rich anyway, so that's ok" argument. Unfortunately, if everyone followed your reasoning no-one would get paid, and no-one would make the TV you want. But I guess you're special and should be allowed to freeload.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to admire the owner's restraint on finding his car's been melted.
"'I am the owner. Crikey, that's awful."
You are clearly not on the right lists. Believe me, once your number gets on one of those lists, and you're getting half a dozen calls a day from random companies, all intent on taking money off you and wasting your time, you'll think differently over what is "necessary".
You may even find your opinions on capital punishment suddenly become a whole lot more medieval.
In that case he should have said MY brain. But he didn't. He addressed his readers as being exclusively male. Because, you know, there's no women here, is there?
I don't know who you thought was freaking out, but if some one wrote about our brains looking different from a man's I would wonder who the hell they are including in this "our".
When you are addressing your reader it is impolite to assume you know their gender, unless you want to specifically imply that you are only addressing the boys. This kind of attitude is exactly the problem the article is about.
Your outrage
If I was outraged I would, in time honored internet fashion, use exclamation points and CAPITALS. Are you new here?
So now saying "Let them do whatever they enjoy"(paraphrased) is patronizing?
Yes, it is. We are not talking about children. We are talking about adults who, naturally, can do whatever they want. No-one gets to "let" them. Especially addressed in a tone like a bemused father.
Asimov was a genius. Not a brilliant writer, but a genius all the same. He was best at short stories, where he could get an idea across quickly. But I find his novels by-the-numbers and tedious. Too many wooden discussions going on that repeat themselves in order to hammer a point home. And he never managed to write a female character that wasn't a two dimensional cypher.
But it doesn't surprise me that this essay is remarkably accurate.
You have some good points, but do you realise that half the problem is the male-centric thinking your post is filled with?
Does a woman's brain look the same as ours on a CAT scan?
Yes. Because we are both human. Oh... by "ours" you mean "men's". I didn't realise this was a men only discussion, no gals allowed.
So why in the hell do we have to treat little Sally like she is just Jimmy without a penis?
Actually, the trick is to treat both Sally & Jimmy like they are people, rather than reference manhood as if it was the base standard. Some people have a talent and a preference for working with computers, most people don't. Everything you have to say about most woman applies equally to most men.
BTW, the fact that Sally is 'little', whereas Jimmy isn't, may betray more about your thinking than you intended.
but hey I'm not a woman and if it makes 'em happy? More power to 'em.
Heh, got to let the little women have their fun, don't we?
But then give a an example of prison rape joke that in your opinion does not trivialize and victimize.
That would be hard to do, but not impossible. It could be something about tough-guy internet vigilantes, who spend rather a lot of time fantasizing about the retribution a criminal may get in prison. It could comment on some people's expectation of a fair and civilised society and judicial system, while still being ok with sexual assault being an unofficial part of that. But it would take a better comedian than me to come up with something truly funny.
These aren't all laughing at the bad guys.
The difference is that Windows 8 is an end-user consumer product that people have parted actually money for. The reasonable expectation is that is should work as is. Their home user base doesn't want to spend time customizing, they just want it to work. Their corporate user base want something that is stable, standard and easy to maintain. Core dependency on a third party add-on that may break with the next security patch, written by a company that may vanish, (however unlikely both scenarios may be) is not good.
But Microsoft aren't completely stupid. They're killing off the start menu for a reason, not just to annoy people. That reason is almost certainly to do with Microsoft's desire to push people towards Metro and, through that, their App Market. They want the same kind of cash cow that Apple has. This is all sound policy for Microsoft, but not for their users. They just need to pull it off without everyone leaving the Windows franchise. It would take a whole lot for Microsoft to mess this up, but it's still a possibility.
It seems an easy decision, to be fair.
He's developed an interface that removes annoying Facebook shit. A third-party wants to buy it and put their annoying shit in instead. Kind of defeats the purpose. Who is going to use it if all it's giving you more of the same, just a different company?
Your interpretation makes anything funny, a trivialization
Your analysis is incorrect. I said "Amongst the bad [things you can accomplish with a joke] is trivialising". No where do I say, or imply, that all jokes trivialise.
He was going on holiday.
Apologies for jumping on the bandwagon, but this one's first stop was RTFA.
Idiot.
Indeed. Comedy is a powerful and many faceted thing. You can accomplish many things with a joke, good and bad. Amongst the bad is trivialising and victimising the subject. The acceptability of a joke doesn't depend on its subject matter, but on its content and intent.
Where's the social/political commentary in the "don't drop the soap in prison" joke? It seems to me to be all about trivialising rape and normalising it as an acceptable (if not encouraged) part of the prison system. That makes it reprehensible and, just as bad, not funny.
He is the egg man.
Yup. Happens to me. People have good intentions, but they're endorsing me for things that they think I do, but I don't. Just another facet of being a techie, a lot of your colleagues only have the sketchiest of ideas of how you accomplish things.
America; let me introduce you to European data protection laws; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
EU legislation is far from perfect, but it still staggers me what companies are allowed to do in the States.
store online somewhere.
Well if you're going to do that, you may as well email it direct to the NSA. Cut out the middle-man. I'm sure Governments would love it if everyone took your advice. It would do away with all the tedious waiting around in airports. They can grab your data without even leaving the office.
take the family photo album
Those photos will come in very handy, now that anti-terrorism laws extend to the family of those who report on security issues. It'll help identify the people you are conspiring with.
Seriously, what is so hard about these two words that they are so commonly confused with each other?
It's like mixing up tan and ten, or pen and pan. They are completely different words that mean completely different things.
I used this autogenerated video already for my study of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
That's how I know about his brave fight against a sea monster called Fortune, despite having come under heavy fire from arrows and sling shots.
Strange that they always cut that bit out of the film adaptations, I thought it was the most exciting part of the play, even though it didn't seem to make much sense.
I wasn't referring to Americans as stupid. The diary analogy was a response to the analogy by the US Government (personified by Obama), who apparently don't understand what the fuss is all about. And they aren't stupid either, they just think they know best and everyone should just shut up and trust them.
I don't think anyone in the public (American or globally) needs it explained to them what "they are taking a copy of all your emails, just because they can" means, or why it should make them uncomfortable.
It must be tough having so many TV services and so many viewing options. And, to top it all, you have to have two DVRs as well! It's more than any one person should have to bear!
Time-shifting Breaking Bad episodes is a basic human right that should available to all, on one box, without too many confusing cables plugged into the back of your TV. In the name of humanity, people!
As I said; you're special and you know it.
None of your examples are requirements of capitalism functioning, so I don't follow their relevance. Rather, they are ways of exploiting weaknesses in capitalism.
What is a requirement of pure capitalism (if that's what we're aspiring to) is that you pay your own way, rather than sponging off everyone else.
I see it as my civic duty to pirate as many tv shows as possible to demonstrate the flaws in the old content distribution monopolies model.
Interesting excuse. I seem to remember the same bankers you referred to using the same. They were "demonstrating" flaws in the system. Not their fault they were there to be used. Pure coincidence that it benefited them at the expense of others. Is that who you take your lead from?
Seems more like you want the output of an industry, but don't want any truck with how that industry works financially. Keep your principles, and your download. May I say, on behalf of society, thank you for all your sacrifices for all our benefit.
An analogy isn't needed because this isn't similar to taking a copy of someone's private documents. Someone who should be able to trust you. This is exactly the same thing.
If someone has a hard time understanding why NSA might anger people, then they're not going to understand the "diary" analogy explaining it either. It's hard to imagine anyone that stupid, but I think it's easier to picture it not as a case of ignorance, but of vastly inflated sense of self-importance and disregard for others.
Let me fix points 2 & 3 for you.
2. I get stuff for free.
3. Everyone else pays for it.
You have to agree it's a compelling argument, if you're selfish and can fool yourself with the "they're all rich anyway, so that's ok" argument. Unfortunately, if everyone followed your reasoning no-one would get paid, and no-one would make the TV you want. But I guess you're special and should be allowed to freeload.
And most DVRs are, sadly for everybody, linked to a particular service.
Everything is linked to a particular service, and if you don't subscribe to that service then what right do you have to time-shift it?
My DVR can record anything I've paid for and everything that's free.