I just think it's funny that everybody thinks that IE exists largely to keep people from moving to another OS. As if everybody walks into Best Buy and notices that only the Windows machines have IE and then say, "Oh well, I guess I'll have to buy a Windows machine then."
Most ordinary users aren't even aware of the browser wars. It's mostly irrelevant to them. As long as they can surf the web they don't give a crap whether they click on a big "E" icon or or an icon of a curled up little fox to get there.
No kidding. Most of these suggestions involve buying copyrights from companies that make millions on their publications in one year (dictionaries, auto-manuals, etc.). You think you're going to flash $10 mil in their face and convince them to basically sell their whole profit machine? $100 million will not buy out many works that are highly valuable. If they are that valuable, the company selling the works is making a lot of $$$.
I'd suggest things that don't get sold in book form. Things like satellite imagery or GIS data from 3 years ago. Stuff that can spur a multitude of hobby/amature prototype-grade proof-of-concept applications. But that would needd to be upgraded to the latest imagery or GIS data (that the respective companies will get paid for) to be precise and up-to-date. The companies get to keep their revenue stream and we get sweet data and imagery to write innovative apps with!
Wait!!! The UN should threaten sanctions agains the insect first. We must also be sensitive and careful not to hurt the insect's feelings. Or our actions may provoke more insect insurgency. Surely the insect will respond to diplomacy. We should try talking to the insect before we fight. The insect probably doesn't understand that we respect it and mean it no harm.
That's awesome! Support for Plug and Play Missile Launchers.I think that should be the number one reason to "Make the switch" to Linux. If that doesn't secure your machine secure I can't imagine what would (except maybe plug and play nuclear ICBMs).
And then you turn right around and quote somebody saying something about the military using Windows machines. I wasn't aware that the State Department is a branch of the US Military. Am I wrong about that? Or are you using unrelated quotes to to flamethrow?
And then the second half of your misapplied quote, "it would probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly." Now *nix would be an easy hack if not secured properly as well, now wouldn't it? In fact, if it's not secured properly the penetration can barely be called a hack. If the door is open there's no breaking in required.
I don't want to trigger a Windows/Linux debate . . . but your post was 95% flamebait.
Of course. And the Google employees just freely pick the best product. That's why the stats for Google/Google are 100%.
It seems like Google would at least be running tests on other search engines to compair. Seems like the number would have to be at least 99% and probably more like 95% to be believable. Does anybody else wonder about that number?
"no comment departures" are a result of the HR department giving you a nice sevrance package and, in return, making you sign a document that says you won't comment.
Plus if all they spent was 30m I'd be surprised if they actually ended up with anything. It costs 30m just for the government to start thinking about something. Much less actually get something done.
The thing I find funny is how women look at being employed. They are envious of the fact that men have the choice to do this. Who in the heck want's to work in a coal mine? Really. Do little boys and girls grow up saying, "Mommy I'm gonna be a coal miner when I grow up?" Or, "Mommy can I be on a road paving crew when I grow up?" Heck no. Think about the myriad of other thankless, tiring, low paying and dirty jobs that men do. Do they do this because this is their dream and they are glad they have the right to chase their dreams? No. They get up in the morning and put a hammer in their hand because it is their duty to provide for their family.
Feminists aren't clamoring for the right to work. They are complaining because they can't get the cushy jobs. They want the jobs that you have to get past the "glass ceiling" to have. Let's face it, there are millions of guys that would like those jobs too.
Women worked in the homes because they were better suited for that role. Men worked on the railroad because they were better suited for that. It's not this big conspiracy that men have built. It's just common sense.
Let's face it if a woman is the best candidate for a job she will get it. In the IT department of the company I work for the help-desk manager is a woman. And guess what gender all 4 employees she hired was? Right, female. My point is that guys feel that they work better with other guys and women work better with other women. It's natural. It's common sense that that will happen. It is not a crime that genders work better within their gender. If guys are guilty of this than women are guilty also.
A woman can get a job anywhere she wants to if she's qualified in 2006. So it's time for the feminists to realize that they've succeeded. In fact it's a well known fact that there have been more female college grads than men for several years now.
So why are the feminists still acting like sore losers? You've won. You can even gloat if you want to. But for crying out loud, it's just plain senselessly deviant and evil to try to create a problem where there is none. So stop.
You are tenacious! I like that. I respect your views and agree with many of your points. And I'm glad we're not discussing my original statement by the term of stereotype anymore. It's been fun.
I've also got to mention that I am not a Republican and I am not from the south (I'm from PA). I don't even go to church. I'd be willing to bet that you had me stereotyped as a Baptist southern boy. I think with my own brain. I don't just go along with what is currently trendy. Feminism has a lot of problems and is the reason for many of the problems women face today.
Things have changed where it counts. Women have made huge strides since the '50s or even the '70s or any other time you'd like to measure from. In the '50s (and many periods before that) women were expected to surpress themselves and live through their husband and children. My grandmother was a housewife in the '50s, and she nearly killed herself because her personality was too strong to repress. Even housewives today don't have it that bad, because their work is finally viewed as *important* because of the work of the feminists of the '50s and '60s. Before then, it was just viewed as women's work, and vastely underrated.
My post was pointing out how there was nothing wrong with the choices women made in the '50s and the home-based mentality they enjoyed. My post also pointed out that it was the feminist/discontented/strong-personality types that were vocal and convinced other women that they shouldn't feel okay about letting the men have all the fun in the corporate world. In fact, please read my post again. Feminists have succeeded at making feminism okay. Now they should enjoy that and stop trying to "enlighten" all of the other women that enjoy traditional roles.
The reason I'm lumping you in with these people (feminists) is because you jump all over people like me in forums and such. Can't you respect the way I enjoy looking at life? It's a dead solid fact that most women enjoy more traditional roles. Most. Most. Most. It's a fact that men enjoy what they've typically done for 500 years. Things worked pretty well this way. Unless you're a '50s grandmother with a strong personality. People like that almost always find a way to ruffle feathers (rock the boat, etc.).
Strong personalities are wonderful though. My personality is strong. I am ruffling feathers just talking about how feminists need tto also convey a message of respect for traditional roles. They often run roughshod over that. Leaving traditional mother types feeling like they are old-fashioned and un-enlightened. Making mothers feel like they should put their kids in daycare and get a real job is shameful.
You get all proud when you reply to a post that says, "Woman usually like to be led". You're hoping that I never thought to consider what I believe. I have thought very much about it. I have listened to many women about the topic. It is absolutely true that "Women usually like to be led."
And the whole fact that I used the word "usually" totally cancels out the possiblity of me making a stereotype. I specifically allowed for the fact that some women prefer to lead when I used the word "usually". I would agree with you that it is a generalization. But it is impossible for a statement to be a stereotype when the person qualifies with the word "usually."
Stereotype == "Blonds are dumb."
Generalization == "Blonds tend to seem dumb."
Stereotype == "Women can't handle the stresses of corporate work."
Generalization == "Some Women can't handle the stresses of corporate work."
Stereotype == "Women like to be led."
Generalization == "Women usually like to be led."
Stereotype == "Women were opressed in the '50s."
Generalization == "Some women felt oppressed in the '50s."
Frankly, men were always glad that the women took care of things at home. Guys appreciate that. If there was ever a time when "woman's work" became an underrated thing it was the women who made it that way. Women got sick of what they did. Then they started going around telling all the other women that they shouldn't be happy doing "woman's work". Next thing you know you've got all these feminists going around trying to make girls feel bad if they wanted to get married and raise kids. I can't tell you how many girls who are seniors in college have told me the following sentance when talking about what they really want in life and why they are starting a career instead. "Well you can't just spend $40,000 on a college education and not have start professional career."
The interesting pattern is that they work for about 3 years and then you fast forward their life about 20 years and they are in the same position making roughly the same pay. Why? Because nobody will promote them because they are female? No. But because they aren't geared to be ambitious and competitive. They don't even want a promotion because it means more stress.
This is how most women are. Most don't want the stress of fierce business competition. They don't like risky moves. They enjoy being settled.
Obviously you aren't like most women. But don't try to say that most women are the way they are because they haven't realized how oppressed they've been trained to be. They like their lives. Can't you be okay with that?
It seems like people like you just don't stop till you've changed everybody. Till you've convinced all women that there's a better option. Don't you realize that a huge number of girls don't want a life like you have? Not that it's a bad life or somehow wrong or less than ideal. No. It's just not what they want for themself. Honestly, they like the life their mom had. They want to be a family person. They want to load the kids up and take them to the pool or to karate. They like picking the kids up from school and going out to lunch with their girlfriends and shopping for kids clothes.
They would hate it if their husband wanted them to find a job and go back to work.
Look kindly upon these women. Don't consider them products of a destructive 50's mentality. Smile when they teach their daughters to find good deals at the supermarket. Praise them that they teach their young sons to hold a door open for a girl. Wtf is wrong with that? It's okay that they don't care to learn Visual Basic. Be happy for them that they don't work. Because after all, they don't even want to.
I guess what you would say is, "I just think women should be encouraged to do what they want. Not just what their parents think they should want or what society thinks that they should want." Well, what if my wife wants to show her daughters how being a housewife is very fun and fulfilling? What if she wants to make sure that they understand that they don't have to work and that they should try to find a husband that believes the same way. Can't you respect that and believe that it's okay for them teach their kids that if they want to?
Have you ever wondered why you never ever hear of men complaining about how they hate that the male gender is stereotyped as "preferring to lead" or "better at hard physical labor" or "insensitive" or "more likely to commit crime" or "not as good with kids" or "better at technical things"? The list of male stereotypes is 5 times as long as the one for women. But why don't we complain?
The entire male gender gets dumped on, misrepresented, and maligned all the time. But we just brush it off and get on with our lives. We do not try to change the world's mind to realize that each man is unique. Men ignore and work around these stereotypes. Maybe women should give that a try. Talking and discussing and educating hasn't gotten women where they want to be. "Things haven't really changed where it counts." Time for a fresh approach. Don't ya think?
Slashdot Mirror
Aw, crap! I'm an idiot. I meant "authoritative reference". I guess a dictionary would be an authoritative reference, huh? Yea, I'll go puke now.
So what do you consider an "Authoratative Reference"?
Cutting off Internet access is sort of like imposing economic sanctions on yourself.
In North Korea's case though, it's not like the citizens have any money that they'd spend on anything via the Internet though.
I just think it's funny that everybody thinks that IE exists largely to keep people from moving to another OS. As if everybody walks into Best Buy and notices that only the Windows machines have IE and then say, "Oh well, I guess I'll have to buy a Windows machine then."
Most ordinary users aren't even aware of the browser wars. It's mostly irrelevant to them. As long as they can surf the web they don't give a crap whether they click on a big "E" icon or or an icon of a curled up little fox to get there.
No kidding. Most of these suggestions involve buying copyrights from companies that make millions on their publications in one year (dictionaries, auto-manuals, etc.). You think you're going to flash $10 mil in their face and convince them to basically sell their whole profit machine? $100 million will not buy out many works that are highly valuable. If they are that valuable, the company selling the works is making a lot of $$$.
I'd suggest things that don't get sold in book form. Things like satellite imagery or GIS data from 3 years ago. Stuff that can spur a multitude of hobby/amature prototype-grade proof-of-concept applications. But that would needd to be upgraded to the latest imagery or GIS data (that the respective companies will get paid for) to be precise and up-to-date. The companies get to keep their revenue stream and we get sweet data and imagery to write innovative apps with!
How is fossil fuel used in medicine?
To help people understand this better, I think we should run a TV special about correlation and causation.
I bet they'd do it in a heartbeat if they could hook your house up to google ads along with it.
The fundies wouldn't be crapping themselves. They'd be happy because the raputure must be right around the corner.
Wait!!! The UN should threaten sanctions agains the insect first. We must also be sensitive and careful not to hurt the insect's feelings. Or our actions may provoke more insect insurgency. Surely the insect will respond to diplomacy. We should try talking to the insect before we fight. The insect probably doesn't understand that we respect it and mean it no harm.
So all I have to do is work for a newspaper or something and I automatically get confidentiality that trumps every power on earth?
That's awesome! Support for Plug and Play Missile Launchers.I think that should be the number one reason to "Make the switch" to Linux. If that doesn't secure your machine secure I can't imagine what would (except maybe plug and play nuclear ICBMs).
I don't want to trigger a Windows/Linux debate
And then you turn right around and quote somebody saying something about the military using Windows machines. I wasn't aware that the State Department is a branch of the US Military. Am I wrong about that? Or are you using unrelated quotes to to flamethrow?
And then the second half of your misapplied quote, "it would probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly." Now *nix would be an easy hack if not secured properly as well, now wouldn't it? In fact, if it's not secured properly the penetration can barely be called a hack. If the door is open there's no breaking in required.
I don't want to trigger a Windows/Linux debate . . . but your post was 95% flamebait.
Yea, this is a major delima. Microsoft (evil) is now competing with Skype (owned by Evil Ebay). So is this bad news or good news????
Of course. And the Google employees just freely pick the best product. That's why the stats for Google/Google are 100%.
It seems like Google would at least be running tests on other search engines to compair. Seems like the number would have to be at least 99% and probably more like 95% to be believable. Does anybody else wonder about that number?
"no comment departures" are a result of the HR department giving you a nice sevrance package and, in return, making you sign a document that says you won't comment.
In other words if they fail, planes collide and economies collapse.
These systems are highly redundant. If a component fails none of the above happens.
Plus if all they spent was 30m I'd be surprised if they actually ended up with anything. It costs 30m just for the government to start thinking about something. Much less actually get something done.
So you mean just like the Mac OS?
The thing I find funny is how women look at being employed. They are envious of the fact that men have the choice to do this. Who in the heck want's to work in a coal mine? Really. Do little boys and girls grow up saying, "Mommy I'm gonna be a coal miner when I grow up?" Or, "Mommy can I be on a road paving crew when I grow up?" Heck no. Think about the myriad of other thankless, tiring, low paying and dirty jobs that men do. Do they do this because this is their dream and they are glad they have the right to chase their dreams? No. They get up in the morning and put a hammer in their hand because it is their duty to provide for their family.
Feminists aren't clamoring for the right to work. They are complaining because they can't get the cushy jobs. They want the jobs that you have to get past the "glass ceiling" to have. Let's face it, there are millions of guys that would like those jobs too.
Women worked in the homes because they were better suited for that role. Men worked on the railroad because they were better suited for that. It's not this big conspiracy that men have built. It's just common sense.
Let's face it if a woman is the best candidate for a job she will get it. In the IT department of the company I work for the help-desk manager is a woman. And guess what gender all 4 employees she hired was? Right, female. My point is that guys feel that they work better with other guys and women work better with other women. It's natural. It's common sense that that will happen. It is not a crime that genders work better within their gender. If guys are guilty of this than women are guilty also.
A woman can get a job anywhere she wants to if she's qualified in 2006. So it's time for the feminists to realize that they've succeeded. In fact it's a well known fact that there have been more female college grads than men for several years now.
So why are the feminists still acting like sore losers? You've won. You can even gloat if you want to. But for crying out loud, it's just plain senselessly deviant and evil to try to create a problem where there is none. So stop.
You are tenacious! I like that. I respect your views and agree with many of your points. And I'm glad we're not discussing my original statement by the term of stereotype anymore. It's been fun.
I've also got to mention that I am not a Republican and I am not from the south (I'm from PA). I don't even go to church. I'd be willing to bet that you had me stereotyped as a Baptist southern boy. I think with my own brain. I don't just go along with what is currently trendy. Feminism has a lot of problems and is the reason for many of the problems women face today.
Um . . . Did you not say the following?
Things have changed where it counts. Women have made huge strides since the '50s or even the '70s or any other time you'd like to measure from. In the '50s (and many periods before that) women were expected to surpress themselves and live through their husband and children. My grandmother was a housewife in the '50s, and she nearly killed herself because her personality was too strong to repress. Even housewives today don't have it that bad, because their work is finally viewed as *important* because of the work of the feminists of the '50s and '60s. Before then, it was just viewed as women's work, and vastely underrated.
My post was pointing out how there was nothing wrong with the choices women made in the '50s and the home-based mentality they enjoyed. My post also pointed out that it was the feminist/discontented/strong-personality types that were vocal and convinced other women that they shouldn't feel okay about letting the men have all the fun in the corporate world. In fact, please read my post again. Feminists have succeeded at making feminism okay. Now they should enjoy that and stop trying to "enlighten" all of the other women that enjoy traditional roles.
The reason I'm lumping you in with these people (feminists) is because you jump all over people like me in forums and such. Can't you respect the way I enjoy looking at life? It's a dead solid fact that most women enjoy more traditional roles. Most. Most. Most. It's a fact that men enjoy what they've typically done for 500 years. Things worked pretty well this way. Unless you're a '50s grandmother with a strong personality. People like that almost always find a way to ruffle feathers (rock the boat, etc.).
Strong personalities are wonderful though. My personality is strong. I am ruffling feathers just talking about how feminists need tto also convey a message of respect for traditional roles. They often run roughshod over that. Leaving traditional mother types feeling like they are old-fashioned and un-enlightened. Making mothers feel like they should put their kids in daycare and get a real job is shameful.
You get all proud when you reply to a post that says, "Woman usually like to be led". You're hoping that I never thought to consider what I believe. I have thought very much about it. I have listened to many women about the topic. It is absolutely true that "Women usually like to be led."
And the whole fact that I used the word "usually" totally cancels out the possiblity of me making a stereotype. I specifically allowed for the fact that some women prefer to lead when I used the word "usually". I would agree with you that it is a generalization. But it is impossible for a statement to be a stereotype when the person qualifies with the word "usually."
Stereotype == "Blonds are dumb." Generalization == "Blonds tend to seem dumb." Stereotype == "Women can't handle the stresses of corporate work." Generalization == "Some Women can't handle the stresses of corporate work." Stereotype == "Women like to be led." Generalization == "Women usually like to be led." Stereotype == "Women were opressed in the '50s." Generalization == "Some women felt oppressed in the '50s."
My statement was not a stereotype.
Frankly, men were always glad that the women took care of things at home. Guys appreciate that. If there was ever a time when "woman's work" became an underrated thing it was the women who made it that way. Women got sick of what they did. Then they started going around telling all the other women that they shouldn't be happy doing "woman's work". Next thing you know you've got all these feminists going around trying to make girls feel bad if they wanted to get married and raise kids. I can't tell you how many girls who are seniors in college have told me the following sentance when talking about what they really want in life and why they are starting a career instead. "Well you can't just spend $40,000 on a college education and not have start professional career."
The interesting pattern is that they work for about 3 years and then you fast forward their life about 20 years and they are in the same position making roughly the same pay. Why? Because nobody will promote them because they are female? No. But because they aren't geared to be ambitious and competitive. They don't even want a promotion because it means more stress.
This is how most women are. Most don't want the stress of fierce business competition. They don't like risky moves. They enjoy being settled.
Obviously you aren't like most women. But don't try to say that most women are the way they are because they haven't realized how oppressed they've been trained to be. They like their lives. Can't you be okay with that?
It seems like people like you just don't stop till you've changed everybody. Till you've convinced all women that there's a better option. Don't you realize that a huge number of girls don't want a life like you have? Not that it's a bad life or somehow wrong or less than ideal. No. It's just not what they want for themself. Honestly, they like the life their mom had. They want to be a family person. They want to load the kids up and take them to the pool or to karate. They like picking the kids up from school and going out to lunch with their girlfriends and shopping for kids clothes.
They would hate it if their husband wanted them to find a job and go back to work.
Look kindly upon these women. Don't consider them products of a destructive 50's mentality. Smile when they teach their daughters to find good deals at the supermarket. Praise them that they teach their young sons to hold a door open for a girl. Wtf is wrong with that? It's okay that they don't care to learn Visual Basic. Be happy for them that they don't work. Because after all, they don't even want to.
I guess what you would say is, "I just think women should be encouraged to do what they want. Not just what their parents think they should want or what society thinks that they should want." Well, what if my wife wants to show her daughters how being a housewife is very fun and fulfilling? What if she wants to make sure that they understand that they don't have to work and that they should try to find a husband that believes the same way. Can't you respect that and believe that it's okay for them teach their kids that if they want to?
Have you ever wondered why you never ever hear of men complaining about how they hate that the male gender is stereotyped as "preferring to lead" or "better at hard physical labor" or "insensitive" or "more likely to commit crime" or "not as good with kids" or "better at technical things"? The list of male stereotypes is 5 times as long as the one for women. But why don't we complain?
The entire male gender gets dumped on, misrepresented, and maligned all the time. But we just brush it off and get on with our lives. We do not try to change the world's mind to realize that each man is unique. Men ignore and work around these stereotypes. Maybe women should give that a try. Talking and discussing and educating hasn't gotten women where they want to be. "Things haven't really changed where it counts." Time for a fresh approach. Don't ya think?