Honestly, who cares what brace style K&R used in their 17+ year-old book.
I seem to remember these guys also peppered their code examples with one letter variable names and avoided checking array bounds like the plague. Almost every string handling example had a potential buffer overflow in it. Should we keep these practices too because K&R popularized them? Are K&R that infallible?
Anyway, here you go, directly from the book:
"The position of braces is less important (than indentation is), although people hold passionate beliefs. We have chosen one of several popular styles. Pick a style that suits you, then use it consistently." -- The C Programming Language, page 10.
Like many lies, it has a purpose, and that purpose is to convince women that they're victims so they'll demand sympathy and special treatment, privileges, and protection, something you seem all too eager to give them.
It's almost hidden
In other words, you can't prove it or give any legitimate examples of its existence, but I should just assume it exists anyway because a bunch of man-haters with an agenda and a long, detailed history of spreading other lies (e.g., "rule of thumb") say so.
You don't have to consider sexism in the workplace
No? So female bosses never give special treatment to their female employees? And some companies don't actively seek to hire women, regardless of their qualifications, just so they can say they hire lots of women?
you don't have to be aware that it's possible you're being underpaid compared to the WM sitting next to you doing the same job.
Ah, one of the oldest feminist lies ever told rears its ugly head again. That women make less money for doing "the same job." That they only make $0.76 for every dollar a man makes.
That statistic comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and it's a comparison of the average salary of all full-time employed men in the country and the average salary of all full-time employed women. It's not a comparison of salaries between men and women doing the same job, working the same hours each week, doing the same amount of overtime, with the same amount of job experience, in the same city, for the same company... And surprise, surprise, when some of those factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap disappears.
Men make more money on average because they work more hours on average each week, are twice as likely to work overtime, and seek out higher-paying, less-fulfilling jobs because they rightly assume that society (read: women) sees them as nothing more than walking wallets and determines their self-worth based on how much money they have. Men also do the dangerous jobs women won't, and makeup 93% of on-the-job fatalities.
So yes, of course men make more money: they deserve it. There's a new book written on this very subject called Why Men Earn More.
Once you realize that you already have special privileges (just because you're a WM) then it doesn't seem so unfair when others are given the same.
White women are and have always been a protected class of citizens with special rights and privileges their male counterparts do not have. The entire concept of chivalry revolves around men sacrificing for women; that women are weak and defenseless and that men need to protect them and provide for them and give up their lives for them.
It still persists to this day, and I can give numerous examples, like the Violence Against Women Act, the federal Office of Women's Health (no office of men's health), the fact that women get custody of children more than 85% of the time (even though they initiate the divorce three-fourths of the time), a 6-7 year "death gap" between men and women no one seems eager to correct, exemption from the draft and combat service in general... The list goes on.
Give me examples of the special treatment men receive. It's very simple, actually. The game works like this: "x law affects women unfairly because..." See if you can play it. If not, then stop trying to claim victimhood for them.
Notice, we still call them "garbage men." That's because there are few, if any, garbage women. I live in a big city and I have yet to see a woman hauling bags into the back of some filthy trash truck.
Isn't this a problem? Isn't the fact that the extremely lucrative field of sanitation is completely male dominated something that needs to be corrected? Or maybe under representation of women in a field is only a problem if society views that field favorably. If it's a dirty job, let the men do it, huh?
Because, as we all know, young male geeks are always the most popular kids in high school. They're never social outcasts. They're never isolated. They always have girlfriends. They never EVER get bullied.
See the point?
In your rush to play knight in shining armor to these "victims" who don't feel "encouraged" enough, you've completely ignored the fact that boys have traditionally never been encouraged to get into these fields either. They've typically received harsher treatment, including physical violence, just for being geeks. But notice, they didn't give up, they didn't run off and major in business or medicine, no, they stuck it out.
Remember when Jon Katz tried to make a big deal out of bullying? Most Slashdotters would have nothing of it, even though many were themselves victims of bullying. At worst they might crack the occasional joke about it, but they seldom--if ever--complain.
Why can't women do the same? Why can't they just stop complaining, STFU, and do their work just as men do? Why do they always need special treatment, special privileges, and special protection?
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, who cares what brace style K&R used in their 17+ year-old book.
I seem to remember these guys also peppered their code examples with one letter variable names and avoided checking array bounds like the plague. Almost every string handling example had a potential buffer overflow in it. Should we keep these practices too because K&R popularized them? Are K&R that infallible?
Anyway, here you go, directly from the book:
"The position of braces is less important (than indentation is), although people hold passionate beliefs. We have chosen one of several popular styles. Pick a style that suits you, then use it consistently." -- The C Programming Language, page 10.
Thanks K&R for your permission! BSD style it is!
It's called White Male Privilege.
No, it's called a lie.
Like many lies, it has a purpose, and that purpose is to convince women that they're victims so they'll demand sympathy and special treatment, privileges, and protection, something you seem all too eager to give them.
It's almost hidden
In other words, you can't prove it or give any legitimate examples of its existence, but I should just assume it exists anyway because a bunch of man-haters with an agenda and a long, detailed history of spreading other lies (e.g., "rule of thumb") say so.
You don't have to consider sexism in the workplace
No? So female bosses never give special treatment to their female employees? And some companies don't actively seek to hire women, regardless of their qualifications, just so they can say they hire lots of women?
you don't have to be aware that it's possible you're being underpaid compared to the WM sitting next to you doing the same job.
Ah, one of the oldest feminist lies ever told rears its ugly head again. That women make less money for doing "the same job." That they only make $0.76 for every dollar a man makes.
That statistic comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and it's a comparison of the average salary of all full-time employed men in the country and the average salary of all full-time employed women. It's not a comparison of salaries between men and women doing the same job, working the same hours each week, doing the same amount of overtime, with the same amount of job experience, in the same city, for the same company... And surprise, surprise, when some of those factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap disappears.
Men make more money on average because they work more hours on average each week, are twice as likely to work overtime, and seek out higher-paying, less-fulfilling jobs because they rightly assume that society (read: women) sees them as nothing more than walking wallets and determines their self-worth based on how much money they have. Men also do the dangerous jobs women won't, and makeup 93% of on-the-job fatalities.
So yes, of course men make more money: they deserve it. There's a new book written on this very subject called Why Men Earn More.
Even Patricia Ireland had to back off this lie when confronted with the facts. Watch her squirm once she gets called on her bullshit by the head of the Cato institute.
Once you realize that you already have special privileges (just because you're a WM) then it doesn't seem so unfair when others are given the same.
White women are and have always been a protected class of citizens with special rights and privileges their male counterparts do not have. The entire concept of chivalry revolves around men sacrificing for women; that women are weak and defenseless and that men need to protect them and provide for them and give up their lives for them.
It still persists to this day, and I can give numerous examples, like the Violence Against Women Act, the federal Office of Women's Health (no office of men's health), the fact that women get custody of children more than 85% of the time (even though they initiate the divorce three-fourths of the time), a 6-7 year "death gap" between men and women no one seems eager to correct, exemption from the draft and combat service in general... The list goes on.
Give me examples of the special treatment men receive. It's very simple, actually. The game works like this: "x law affects women unfairly because..." See if you can play it. If not, then stop trying to claim victimhood for them.
Notice, we still call them "garbage men." That's because there are few, if any, garbage women. I live in a big city and I have yet to see a woman hauling bags into the back of some filthy trash truck.
Isn't this a problem? Isn't the fact that the extremely lucrative field of sanitation is completely male dominated something that needs to be corrected? Or maybe under representation of women in a field is only a problem if society views that field favorably. If it's a dirty job, let the men do it, huh?
Unlike boys, I suppose?
Because, as we all know, young male geeks are always the most popular kids in high school. They're never social outcasts. They're never isolated. They always have girlfriends. They never EVER get bullied.
See the point?
In your rush to play knight in shining armor to these "victims" who don't feel "encouraged" enough, you've completely ignored the fact that boys have traditionally never been encouraged to get into these fields either. They've typically received harsher treatment, including physical violence, just for being geeks. But notice, they didn't give up, they didn't run off and major in business or medicine, no, they stuck it out.
Remember when Jon Katz tried to make a big deal out of bullying? Most Slashdotters would have nothing of it, even though many were themselves victims of bullying. At worst they might crack the occasional joke about it, but they seldom--if ever--complain.
Why can't women do the same? Why can't they just stop complaining, STFU, and do their work just as men do? Why do they always need special treatment, special privileges, and special protection?