Dude, a) speak for yourself. b) "either you agree with me, or I'll call you a liar" may be an acceptable line "over there", but I hope/. is better than that.
Sure, Kate's not perfect by common beauty standards. And yes, I appreciated that in a weird way, for variety alone. But let's be fair here, Leo's not all that either. So it was a movie with two (visually) non-perfect people. (Which was kinda nice.) Speaking for myself, it wasn't "Even you can get Leo." If there was an "even you" in there at all, it was, "Even girls like you could get that deep, amazing love."
Well, I don't really see why it shouldn't be legal to snap a picture of something you're already able to see. There might be reasonable limitations on what you can do with the picture (and who you can show it to), but taking it shouldn't be a privacy issue.
I see how that point can be argued. Furthermore, I do not pretend to be privy to the exact reasoning that led to these laws being enacted. That said, I find it hard to come up with a legitimate case here. First of all, I'd think the general assumption is that in the vast majority of cases, the point of pictures is to show them to somebody else. In cases like, "I'm going to Iceland for two years, I'd like to take a picture of my family", it seems unlikely that said family would not give consent (and if they don't, why would your need outweigh theirs?). Likewise, if there's a random person in the street and you feel you absolutely want to take their picture, how hard is it to walk up to them and ask them for permission? That's the courteous thing anyway, so I presume you're already doing that, so you wouldn't actually be losing anything through such a law? The only reasonable exception I could see here is the Rodney King Defense, that is, I can see how an exception for documenting a crime might be sensible.
That said, with pretty much everybody having a camera (in the form of a cell phone) on them all the time these days, it will be interesting to see how these laws hold up. But then, that also applies to the locker room, I guess.
That is pretty silly, because invariably the "dignity of others" is used to suppress speech.
Sure, but you know? Nevermind speech.
If someone doesn't have enough of a point for them to make it without name-calling, then I have no problem at all with that speech being suppressed. Why would I? "ZOMG but it's speech!!" isn't an argument in itself, even if it seems to be treated like an axiom in the US?
No, seriously. The only difference between your speech and ours seems to be a perceived "right to be rude" - and it's not like your speech weren't limited by libel, slander, community standards, "fire in the theatre" etc. already anyway, so it's hardly absolute even in the US. So, we do political discourse here, minus a few of the insults. The US? 8 years of Dubya. News that aren't. One and a half parties, conservative and very conservative. Not offense intended, but from abroad it's hard not to think, "Yeah, fat lot of good all that "speech" did you.
It's very simple. If I'm in public and you take a picture of me in some embarrassing pose, that's your right
Sure, but my point is that that is an arbitrary convention -- in some countries it's legal, in others it's not. In other words, you are referring to what is a legal right in some countries, not a moral right in any or all countries. In fact, the suggestion that I should have to "take steps to protect my privacy" rather than that privacy being (legally and morally) protected by default puzzles me. But hey, I'm from one of those silly European countries where "dignity" is ranked higher than "speech."
I guess that makes my point a) that you can be within your legal rights, and still be acting like an ass and b) that the law isn't always consistent (referring to my OP here, "consistent across like circumstances"; of course it doesn't necessarily have to be consistent across countries), and I find it entirely fair game to criticize that.
Yup. Sometimes, I just don't get/.ers. They'll happily defend taking pictures of random people without their consent, but now this. Kindly make up your respective minds; either it's OK to take pictures of people that might embarrass them, or it's not. Nakedness is orthogonal to the issue.
All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
That's just the thing, though. Nowadays if German A accuses German B of a lack of patriotism, B will most likely consider A a nazi or a nitwit. It's become pretty much a dirty word.
You know some couples are actually secure enough with each other not to freak out if their partners hints that they sometimes think about other people
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "secure with each other" (inertia?), but I'd think if they were secure and self-assured, they'd say, Time to move on; I can do better than settle for someone who settles for me.
and are actually capable of taking a joke about it.
I find it revealing that your use of "joke" in that sentence works the same way as "slap across the face."
If you can show me an unexpected, insightful twist, I might laugh. If you're just rude, I'll treat you like any other arsehole, and if you expect to smile (and encourage further arseholosity) in reply, I'll treat you like an arse twice. Before trying to avoid you in the future.
I find society's obsession with "seeking a guy who can make you laugh" and such quite tiring; you get a low percentage of people who are actually talented that way, and a large percentage of idiots who read that as a requirement and then are trite or rude and hope people will mistake that for funny. Humour's so overrated it's not even funny.
"I faked meeting the baseline standards of human decency, but women weren't all over me, so now I'm bitter."
Women are always claiming, "I want a nice guy who takes care of me and treats me well," and then go home with the biggest douche-bag at the end of the night.
"She picked somebody else."
I guarantee, if you're nice to her and actually do the things that make her happy, she'll put you firmly in the friend zone.
"I did friend things, and she treated me like a friend, instead of knowing it was all fraud to get into her pants! What do you mean I can't blame her for my being deceptive?"
she's just incredible - smart, successful, incredibly hot. Particularly kicking myself lately, as I'm helping her through another horrible breakup. (The guy was the typical macho asshole type, and she finally figured out after three years of living with him that he was a cheating, lying, drunk, lazy, immature drug-addict leech.
"She was really smart, except, she was really dumb, not knowing who'd really be good for her. Well, I guess I meant, 'She was smart -- for a woman.'"
So I say this, fellow geeks, don't follow your instincts to be nice. Be a dick. Flaunt your cash. It's what she's really attracted to, despite the fact she doesn't even realize it herself. Don't call, don't be overly helpful, don't listen attentively (or don't look like you are). Talk about yourself. Dismiss her problems. Hit on other women when you're out with her. Seriously, it's the dumbest fucking thing you've ever seen, but soon enough she'll be hooked.
"Women are dumb and don't know what they want. Also, they're automatons. Since you'll never be self-assured, at least don't act like a sycophant. Act like an arsehole. If you're lucky, somebody will mistake that for being strong or sovereign and, quite frankly, that is your only chance."
Yes, I have a late model sportscar that I bought after the divorce as a present to myself.
"When I lost the vagina-american accessory, my manhood wilted off, so I spent a lot of money to advertise that I'm pitiful. Maybe, I'll attract some dumb chick with a Samaritan complex."
Yes, I learned to dress better than usual when going out.
"It's scandalous I should have to groom myself, scandalous, I say!, while expecting ten times that from women!"
I like how this is actually illegal in Germany. There are exceptions for "people of note", ie, celebrities/politicians/..., but you can't legally take pictures of "normal" individuals with their consent. In other words, you need the equivalent of a model release even if you only use the pictures privately. Yes, there are exceptions for large groups and such, and yes, it's hard to enforce now that every cell phone has a camera, but still, it's a nice touch.
I really don't get people who complain about how they got this really expensive camera, and now they have to ask before they get to use it. So what? It's not my fault you made that decision, why should I have to suffer for it? Taking pictures of unwilling people isn't a goth-given right. Also, it's bloody impolite. Having access to a camera is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to morally -- and in some places legally -- taking pictures of people.
Personally, I have more respect for him than that. He already replied to my comment; if he'd have felt grossly misrepresented, he'd have spoken up.
You're reacting like a woman.
With no disrespect to Gordon, I don't buy into that whole half-life thing. Having to choose from one set of behaviors, or the other. As stated elsewhere, that's pretty anti-geek for a start. Real men are jocks. White men can't jump. Women can't be on/.
You're even pretty good at it, but you aren't fooling anyone, because this is slashdot, and we all know you're really male. So give it up.
I realize that you're trying to make a "true Scotsman" argument (and Google will supply ample material for that), but my point isn't about whether I am a sufficiently advanced simulation, but that it shouldn't matter in this context.;) Given the original article, I'm half-surprised you didn't doubt whether I was human in the first place.;)
Since on one hand you'll find that I haven't made a claim along the lines of "I am a woman! Therefore, I have the authority to qualify your viewpoint!", and on the other I'm sure you're free of homophobic and misogynist bias {"1 - This person might be a woman! 2 - OMG I gotta police our borders!!"} or {"1 - This person might be a woman. 2 - Women are not here for the same reason guys are, but only to be hit on. 3 - If I hit on this person and they're not really a woman, that will magically make me teh gay! 4 - Being gay is a fate worse than death!!1!"} it is not IOTTMCO what your point is.:)
women just want the listening (at least until they have finished their rant, by which time they will probably feel better and not care about the problem)
I like to think of it as, "knowing that trying to solve something when pissed off often renders inferior insults, so getting the annoyance out of one's system, and then being fully capable to solve the problem without any input on the actual problem." That's not the same as "not caring about the problem.";)
in fact the way the book describes relationships was sometimes the complete opposite of my experience.
I agree. I think that meshes well with "the geek experience(TM)" anyway, that is, shaping your life according to your own interests and gifts, after realizing that if you were to try and shape it according to other people's expectations, you'd probably have a poor time of it.:)
What's the big deal about AdBlock? Couldn't that sort of thing be handled in, say, privoxy?
My non-privacy related reasons for not switching:
No tabs. Well, OK, like one row of them, but what good is that when you open several dozen tabs?
No pie-menu.
No Linux version.
If there were a non-Google released Chrome that rectified those, I'd be switching in a second, for process separation, and being able to see what page wastes my resources alone -- so I really don't know what this talk about Firefox users being fiercely loyal is.
As long as you give occasional signs that you are paying attention, they'll believe you were "listening" more than if you actually try to have a real conversation with them.
I think we may be in disagreement about what constitutes a "real conversation." I for one think the listening bit is a hard requirement for one.
They don't want answers, they just want someone to be there.
When one option is empathizing and building rapport and making the other feel understood, and then trusting them to be an adult and be fully capable to solve whatever they were upset about by themselves, and the other is being a condescending ass who thinks they have all the answers and the other party is some sort of idiot or not fully human -- well, let's "just" say I think you may have put your "just" in the wrong place.:)
That's what "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" says anyway.
Heh. Words of wisdom from Mr Zero Credentials.:) Well, at least he didn't claim that "women are from Vegas", I suppose.:) I'm all for furthering understanding, I'm just a bit disgruntled that a lot of these books come across as something within the range "understanding the (incomprehensible, not fully rational/human) Other".. "owner's manual". Makes me wonder at times whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to ask the person in question what they expect from me, rather than treat them like an element of a uniform class.;)
a heterosexual man can't help but look at a pretty girl
No, that doesn't sound self-serving at all.:)
The question is however, is this the True Scotsman fallacy, or would there be a number of counter-examples high enough to count as refuting that claim? What would that number be?
If other girls are the primary problem, it's interesting that we generally see better scores in all-girl classes.
(But yeah, mod up the thing that's fishy but absolves men. ; )
That said while there are presumably experiences that women as members of the same (sex-) class share, we are not the Borg. Also, I'm not quite sure what your argument is supposed to prove -- wouldn't it be the obvious thing for the Patriarchy to do to pit women against each other and then put the blame on them? Surely divide et impera is no news to you. So just because you see women in conflict doesn't prove that the Patriarchy does not exist. Not by a long shot. In case that's what you were trying to suggest with the scare quotes.
Now I don't want to seem stupid, but the way it appears to me, simple things are simple with the 3Phone -- but then, those only take a moment to figure out with pretty much any phone --, and anything advanced requires you to jailbreak the doggone thing first, which isn't my definition of "intuitive." How does that make for a sum total of "ease of use"?
disclosure: I own an iPod, and since I was daft enough to end up owning a model that there is no rockbox for, I'm stuck with a player that doesn't have a decent equalizer (and, for that matter, doesn't play Ogg Vorbis), so it not only doesn't have any advanced functions, it already underwhelms at what I would consider core functionality. So, I'm tempted to see the 3Phone through that lens for now. It seems pleasing enough because, hey, shiny baubles, but how it is pleasing enough to allow Apple to crap all over me will certainly require an explanation.
Nobody shows any sign of caring that they can inherit property which they contributed *nothing* towards
That's an assumption at best. I for one have a definite suspicion that inheritance is probably bollocks, making people start on an unnecessarily uneven playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose there is no particular reason to expect men not to make light of rape in a discussion about a book called "Men who hate women."
Dude, /. is better than that.
a) speak for yourself.
b) "either you agree with me, or I'll call you a liar" may be an acceptable line "over there", but I hope
Played Portal on Mac using Crossover Games. Worked like a charm.
It's also about time to note that a dyke-disclaimer will not keep all of your readers at bay. ;)
Fortunately, there are good manners to fall back on.
--
Happy 5770. Keep up the good work.
Sure, Kate's not perfect by common beauty standards. And yes, I appreciated that in a weird way, for variety alone. But let's be fair here, Leo's not all that either. So it was a movie with two (visually) non-perfect people. (Which was kinda nice.) Speaking for myself, it wasn't "Even you can get Leo." If there was an "even you" in there at all, it was, "Even girls like you could get that deep, amazing love."
I see how that point can be argued. Furthermore, I do not pretend to be privy to the exact reasoning that led to these laws being enacted. That said, I find it hard to come up with a legitimate case here. First of all, I'd think the general assumption is that in the vast majority of cases, the point of pictures is to show them to somebody else. In cases like, "I'm going to Iceland for two years, I'd like to take a picture of my family", it seems unlikely that said family would not give consent (and if they don't, why would your need outweigh theirs?). Likewise, if there's a random person in the street and you feel you absolutely want to take their picture, how hard is it to walk up to them and ask them for permission? That's the courteous thing anyway, so I presume you're already doing that, so you wouldn't actually be losing anything through such a law? The only reasonable exception I could see here is the Rodney King Defense, that is, I can see how an exception for documenting a crime might be sensible.
That said, with pretty much everybody having a camera (in the form of a cell phone) on them all the time these days, it will be interesting to see how these laws hold up. But then, that also applies to the locker room, I guess.
Sure, but you know? Nevermind speech.
If someone doesn't have enough of a point for them to make it without name-calling, then I have no problem at all with that speech being suppressed. Why would I? "ZOMG but it's speech!!" isn't an argument in itself, even if it seems to be treated like an axiom in the US?
No, seriously. The only difference between your speech and ours seems to be a perceived "right to be rude" - and it's not like your speech weren't limited by libel, slander, community standards, "fire in the theatre" etc. already anyway, so it's hardly absolute even in the US. So, we do political discourse here, minus a few of the insults. The US? 8 years of Dubya. News that aren't. One and a half parties, conservative and very conservative. Not offense intended, but from abroad it's hard not to think, "Yeah, fat lot of good all that "speech" did you.
Sure, but my point is that that is an arbitrary convention -- in some countries it's legal, in others it's not. In other words, you are referring to what is a legal right in some countries, not a moral right in any or all countries. In fact, the suggestion that I should have to "take steps to protect my privacy" rather than that privacy being (legally and morally) protected by default puzzles me. But hey, I'm from one of those silly European countries where "dignity" is ranked higher than "speech."
I guess that makes my point a) that you can be within your legal rights, and still be acting like an ass and b) that the law isn't always consistent (referring to my OP here, "consistent across like circumstances"; of course it doesn't necessarily have to be consistent across countries), and I find it entirely fair game to criticize that.
Thanks for the mostly civil answer though!
Yup. Sometimes, I just don't get /.ers. They'll happily defend taking pictures of random people without their consent, but now this. Kindly make up your respective minds; either it's OK to take pictures of people that might embarrass them, or it's not. Nakedness is orthogonal to the issue.
The human body really freaks you out, doesn't it. So, "Yes." to "bigger problem."
In all fairness, I'd be tempted to blame that on your imagination rather than the product. :)
That's just the thing, though. Nowadays if German A accuses German B of a lack of patriotism, B will most likely consider A a nazi or a nitwit. It's become pretty much a dirty word.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "secure with each other" (inertia?), but I'd think if they were secure and self-assured, they'd say, Time to move on; I can do better than settle for someone who settles for me.
I find it revealing that your use of "joke" in that sentence works the same way as "slap across the face."
If you can show me an unexpected, insightful twist, I might laugh. If you're just rude, I'll treat you like any other arsehole, and if you expect to smile (and encourage further arseholosity) in reply, I'll treat you like an arse twice. Before trying to avoid you in the future.
I find society's obsession with "seeking a guy who can make you laugh" and such quite tiring; you get a low percentage of people who are actually talented that way, and a large percentage of idiots who read that as a requirement and then are trite or rude and hope people will mistake that for funny. Humour's so overrated it's not even funny.
"I faked meeting the baseline standards of human decency, but women weren't all over me, so now I'm bitter."
"She picked somebody else."
"I did friend things, and she treated me like a friend, instead of knowing it was all fraud to get into her pants! What do you mean I can't blame her for my being deceptive?"
"She was really smart, except, she was really dumb, not knowing who'd really be good for her. Well, I guess I meant, 'She was smart -- for a woman.'"
"Women are dumb and don't know what they want. Also, they're automatons. Since you'll never be self-assured, at least don't act like a sycophant. Act like an arsehole. If you're lucky, somebody will mistake that for being strong or sovereign and, quite frankly, that is your only chance."
"When I lost the vagina-american accessory, my manhood wilted off, so I spent a lot of money to advertise that I'm pitiful. Maybe, I'll attract some dumb chick with a Samaritan complex."
"It's scandalous I should have to groom myself, scandalous, I say!, while expecting ten times that from women!"
I like how this is actually illegal in Germany. There are exceptions for "people of note", ie, celebrities/politicians/..., but you can't legally take pictures of "normal" individuals with their consent. In other words, you need the equivalent of a model release even if you only use the pictures privately. Yes, there are exceptions for large groups and such, and yes, it's hard to enforce now that every cell phone has a camera, but still, it's a nice touch.
I really don't get people who complain about how they got this really expensive camera, and now they have to ask before they get to use it. So what? It's not my fault you made that decision, why should I have to suffer for it? Taking pictures of unwilling people isn't a goth-given right. Also, it's bloody impolite. Having access to a camera is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to morally -- and in some places legally -- taking pictures of people.
So, how'd the kool aid taste?
Personally, I have more respect for him than that. He already replied to my comment; if he'd have felt grossly misrepresented, he'd have spoken up.
With no disrespect to Gordon, I don't buy into that whole half-life thing. Having to choose from one set of behaviors, or the other. As stated elsewhere, that's pretty anti-geek for a start. Real men are jocks. White men can't jump. Women can't be on /.
I realize that you're trying to make a "true Scotsman" argument (and Google will supply ample material for that), but my point isn't about whether I am a sufficiently advanced simulation, but that it shouldn't matter in this context. ;) Given the original article, I'm half-surprised you didn't doubt whether I was human in the first place. ;)
Since on one hand you'll find that I haven't made a claim along the lines of "I am a woman! Therefore, I have the authority to qualify your viewpoint!", and on the other I'm sure you're free of homophobic and misogynist bias {"1 - This person might be a woman! 2 - OMG I gotta police our borders!!"} or {"1 - This person might be a woman. 2 - Women are not here for the same reason guys are, but only to be hit on. 3 - If I hit on this person and they're not really a woman, that will magically make me teh gay! 4 - Being gay is a fate worse than death!!1!"} it is not IOTTMCO what your point is. :)
I like to think of it as, "knowing that trying to solve something when pissed off often renders inferior insults, so getting the annoyance out of one's system, and then being fully capable to solve the problem without any input on the actual problem." That's not the same as "not caring about the problem." ;)
I agree. I think that meshes well with "the geek experience(TM)" anyway, that is, shaping your life according to your own interests and gifts, after realizing that if you were to try and shape it according to other people's expectations, you'd probably have a poor time of it. :)
What's the big deal about AdBlock? Couldn't that sort of thing be handled in, say, privoxy?
My non-privacy related reasons for not switching:
If there were a non-Google released Chrome that rectified those, I'd be switching in a second, for process separation, and being able to see what page wastes my resources alone -- so I really don't know what this talk about Firefox users being fiercely loyal is.
I think we may be in disagreement about what constitutes a "real conversation." I for one think the listening bit is a hard requirement for one.
When one option is empathizing and building rapport and making the other feel understood, and then trusting them to be an adult and be fully capable to solve whatever they were upset about by themselves, and the other is being a condescending ass who thinks they have all the answers and the other party is some sort of idiot or not fully human -- well, let's "just" say I think you may have put your "just" in the wrong place. :)
Heh. Words of wisdom from Mr Zero Credentials. :) Well, at least he didn't claim that "women are from Vegas", I suppose. :) I'm all for furthering understanding, I'm just a bit disgruntled that a lot of these books come across as something within the range "understanding the (incomprehensible, not fully rational/human) Other" .. "owner's manual". Makes me wonder at times whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to ask the person in question what they expect from me, rather than treat them like an element of a uniform class. ;)
No, that doesn't sound self-serving at all. :)
The question is however, is this the True Scotsman fallacy, or would there be a number of counter-examples high enough to count as refuting that claim? What would that number be?
Can't speak for other women, but I read those as "I never want any contact with a real woman 'evah.'"
If other girls are the primary problem, it's interesting that we generally see better scores in all-girl classes.
(But yeah, mod up the thing that's fishy but absolves men. ; )
That said while there are presumably experiences that women as members of the same (sex-) class share, we are not the Borg. Also, I'm not quite sure what your argument is supposed to prove -- wouldn't it be the obvious thing for the Patriarchy to do to pit women against each other and then put the blame on them? Surely divide et impera is no news to you. So just because you see women in conflict doesn't prove that the Patriarchy does not exist. Not by a long shot. In case that's what you were trying to suggest with the scare quotes.
Now I don't want to seem stupid, but the way it appears to me, simple things are simple with the 3Phone -- but then, those only take a moment to figure out with pretty much any phone --, and anything advanced requires you to jailbreak the doggone thing first, which isn't my definition of "intuitive." How does that make for a sum total of "ease of use"?
disclosure: I own an iPod, and since I was daft enough to end up owning a model that there is no rockbox for, I'm stuck with a player that doesn't have a decent equalizer (and, for that matter, doesn't play Ogg Vorbis), so it not only doesn't have any advanced functions, it already underwhelms at what I would consider core functionality. So, I'm tempted to see the 3Phone through that lens for now. It seems pleasing enough because, hey, shiny baubles, but how it is pleasing enough to allow Apple to crap all over me will certainly require an explanation.
That's an assumption at best. I for one have a definite suspicion that inheritance is probably bollocks, making people start on an unnecessarily uneven playing field.