Your generalization utterly fails to take into account the fact that there are plenty of whiny douchebag men out there who want nothing but recognition and approval. You also fail to take into account the fact that there are many women out there who are quite capable of standing on their own in the face of adversity.
And your statement more or less proves his point. When women stop being whiny, they're just as, if not more capable than men. And likewise, men who spend all day whining about how unfair life is will get nowhere.
Tomorrow's women will be better off if we, today, address the prejudices than if today's women merely "grow a backbone.
He's saying it's all a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Men get a lot of flak for being geeks and nerds too. It's almost tradition to portray the programming nerd as socially awkward, unkempt, usually fat, sometimes balding, but always physically inferior. Tell me that's not prejudice, that it's not flak.
But men don't really bother to take notice of these things. When we want to do something, we do it. We don't ask for social acceptance. We don't look to our peers and wonder what they'd think of us, whether it's cool or hip or not.
GP is saying, if women held the same attitudes, they'd go much farther in life than if they continue to cling to the idea that a male-dominated society is keeping them down. Because that doesn't exist by and large (sure, there are the outliers, but that's all they are nowadays). The only thing that matters now is money; how much you have, and how much you can make.
And there have been studies concluding that a lack of self confidence directly causes poor performance.
A double standard exists. There's no denying that. The same thing exists with racism as well, so it's not just discrimination based on sex.
The thing that complicates sexism and muddles the whole affair is that there actually are (scientifically demonstrated, if I may add) physical differences between men and women. Suddenly, what is legitmately discriminatory and what is not isn't so clear cut anymore.
That's utter bullshit. Windows 95 was just a glorified 3.11. If 3.11 didn't need it, 95 sure as hell didn't need it. And you could still do most stuff without IE. That link was forced. And then they tried to make it indispensible by calling it from the most crucial parts of the system afterwards so that they had an excuse to keep including IE.
I'm still on Win2K at home. Came with my dell laptop that's dead now, and I've been installing it on every new dell computer I get (I only have one machine at a time, so there's no license breech there). I don't need the fancy window dressing. The extra stuff is all fluff to me, including and especially Windows Media Player and Windows Update improvements. I have my own antivirus and firewall software, so the BS Microsoft's included with SP2 is irrelevant to me (and annoying when it pops up every 5 minutes telling me my computer isn't secure when it can't find my antivirus or firewall).
A lot of people say WinXP is good enough, and I think that's probably accurate for most people. I think Win2k is good enough.
As always, the correct response to this is that it depends.
Using Akami as an example, they have mirrors in dozens and dozens of locations around the world. So if one or two of Akami's physical data centers goes up in flames, well, there are the other fifty data centers that're still around with your data. In this case, there is certainly redundance in the cloud.
However, if say, Google kept all of their apps data in one data center, and didn't mirror it, then if that data center gets swallowed by the earth, so does your data.
The difference between the "cloud" and your own implementation is that the cloud isn't under your control. You toss your data into the air, and the cloud picks it up. What happens with your data is beyond you now.
Some people like to have control of their data. Some people like to just put it somewhere and forget about it. The cloud isn't for the former type, but it's perfect for the latter. There are plusses and minuses to both sides, and tradeoffs to be made using one over the other. But FWIW, the layman probably likes the cloud because he doesn't have to deal with storing and securing his data. On the other hand, the geeks and experts probably like to have control, since we're fully capable of protecting our data.
This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.
What exactly is a person of color, and how is that different from any other person that is lacking color?
The fact that you're referring to yourself as a "person of color" says you're still firmly in the "I'm being discriminated against by the white man" mentality. It's self-serving. While discrimination exists at all levels, I think you'd find yourself accomplishing much more if you didn't think in terms of "us vs. them" but simply in "us."
In US terms, it's basically the news coverage out of NPR or PBS. It's excellently realist, though as always, there's very slight bias towards whichever way society leans in general. But there's more educated discourse there than in private-owned news outlets simply because they're not trying to make a quick buck by sensationalising every little thing and causing general panic.
It's probably more than 12 million but not quite 13 million. I'm certain the number 12,576,624 provides no more practical information than 12-13 million. That extra 576,624 more than 12 million and 423,376 less than 13 million isn't a big enough number to affect the point the writer is trying to get across.
The smarter compromise Comcast could've made is to throttle bandwidth after a certain cap has been reached. But then they wouldn't be able to make money off of it either.
The people committing suicide are crazy. By definition, they're criminally insane.
But the people up top funding, organizing, and managing the whole thing are brilliant, sane, and probably more rational than most of us. There are perfectly good reasons to dislike the US enough to wage guerilla warfare on its citizens. Now, it'd be a reasonable and noble goal for the US government to stop doing things that tick other people off. However, that's now how things work here. The people who encourage such actions are not the ones who eventually pay the price by getting their asses flowing into a building or blown up. They're the ones sitting atop their mountain palaces secure in their effects while the rest of the world goes to hell. So what do they care that we're down below, getting our asses handed to us, either lightly seared by the terrorists, or wider open than the goatse guy by the people in charge as they try to stop the terrorists.
I think people need to justify why the President of the F*cking United States couldn't pull the Olympics for his home city. Customs is a pretty good reason. I have my own opinion, but they can't really outdo the ridiculous situation at the border.
This isn't true. The major cities in Europe have a lot of pickpockets and undesirables looking for tourists to prey off. Major cities in the US tend to be safer in that regard. If you stick to the touristy areas, you'll usually be fine. If you wander off the beaten path, you might get shot, but that's largely your fault for going somewhere everybody else with better sense isn't.
That having been said, I don't feel the small increase in safety is worth my liberties. The reason why people are so willing to give up their liberties for safety (perceived or otherwise) is because they're generally intellectually lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Your generalization utterly fails to take into account the fact that there are plenty of whiny douchebag men out there who want nothing but recognition and approval. You also fail to take into account the fact that there are many women out there who are quite capable of standing on their own in the face of adversity.
And your statement more or less proves his point. When women stop being whiny, they're just as, if not more capable than men. And likewise, men who spend all day whining about how unfair life is will get nowhere.
Tomorrow's women will be better off if we, today, address the prejudices than if today's women merely "grow a backbone.
He's saying it's all a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Men get a lot of flak for being geeks and nerds too. It's almost tradition to portray the programming nerd as socially awkward, unkempt, usually fat, sometimes balding, but always physically inferior. Tell me that's not prejudice, that it's not flak.
But men don't really bother to take notice of these things. When we want to do something, we do it. We don't ask for social acceptance. We don't look to our peers and wonder what they'd think of us, whether it's cool or hip or not.
GP is saying, if women held the same attitudes, they'd go much farther in life than if they continue to cling to the idea that a male-dominated society is keeping them down. Because that doesn't exist by and large (sure, there are the outliers, but that's all they are nowadays). The only thing that matters now is money; how much you have, and how much you can make.
And there have been studies concluding that a lack of self confidence directly causes poor performance.
A double standard exists. There's no denying that. The same thing exists with racism as well, so it's not just discrimination based on sex.
The thing that complicates sexism and muddles the whole affair is that there actually are (scientifically demonstrated, if I may add) physical differences between men and women. Suddenly, what is legitmately discriminatory and what is not isn't so clear cut anymore.
Hey, mainstream media does it all the time! If it's not acceptable, why do they get to do it?
That's utter bullshit. Windows 95 was just a glorified 3.11. If 3.11 didn't need it, 95 sure as hell didn't need it. And you could still do most stuff without IE. That link was forced. And then they tried to make it indispensible by calling it from the most crucial parts of the system afterwards so that they had an excuse to keep including IE.
It's actually the move from Win2K to XP.
I'm still on Win2K at home. Came with my dell laptop that's dead now, and I've been installing it on every new dell computer I get (I only have one machine at a time, so there's no license breech there). I don't need the fancy window dressing. The extra stuff is all fluff to me, including and especially Windows Media Player and Windows Update improvements. I have my own antivirus and firewall software, so the BS Microsoft's included with SP2 is irrelevant to me (and annoying when it pops up every 5 minutes telling me my computer isn't secure when it can't find my antivirus or firewall).
A lot of people say WinXP is good enough, and I think that's probably accurate for most people. I think Win2k is good enough.
As always, the correct response to this is that it depends.
Using Akami as an example, they have mirrors in dozens and dozens of locations around the world. So if one or two of Akami's physical data centers goes up in flames, well, there are the other fifty data centers that're still around with your data. In this case, there is certainly redundance in the cloud.
However, if say, Google kept all of their apps data in one data center, and didn't mirror it, then if that data center gets swallowed by the earth, so does your data.
The difference between the "cloud" and your own implementation is that the cloud isn't under your control. You toss your data into the air, and the cloud picks it up. What happens with your data is beyond you now.
Some people like to have control of their data. Some people like to just put it somewhere and forget about it. The cloud isn't for the former type, but it's perfect for the latter. There are plusses and minuses to both sides, and tradeoffs to be made using one over the other. But FWIW, the layman probably likes the cloud because he doesn't have to deal with storing and securing his data. On the other hand, the geeks and experts probably like to have control, since we're fully capable of protecting our data.
probably 99% of the software I run is free & open source.
To the BSA, that's like saying 99% of the software on your computer was pirated. They stop reading after "free."
Then again, I guess it's already impressive you guys put a space between "de" and "Winne".
Or didn't outright replace "de" with "the" thinking it was a spelling error.
Where do you people come from?
The United States. Duh!
Only because she didn't get enough with Bill.
Or petrified trees.
This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.
What exactly is a person of color, and how is that different from any other person that is lacking color?
The fact that you're referring to yourself as a "person of color" says you're still firmly in the "I'm being discriminated against by the white man" mentality. It's self-serving. While discrimination exists at all levels, I think you'd find yourself accomplishing much more if you didn't think in terms of "us vs. them" but simply in "us."
In US terms, it's basically the news coverage out of NPR or PBS. It's excellently realist, though as always, there's very slight bias towards whichever way society leans in general. But there's more educated discourse there than in private-owned news outlets simply because they're not trying to make a quick buck by sensationalising every little thing and causing general panic.
Your dog does it, but it's probably not ink.
How about just changing public perception of being thin?
Instead of trying to be thin, or conversely, trying to be fat, how about encouraging people to try to be just right? Or around just right?
That incident never happened. Says so right here in my shiny new Kindle. Oooh, shiny...
looking at complaints about a company just nets the loons, the disturbed, and the just plain goofy.
And they gather to create critical mass in a weird little site called slashdot.
It's probably more than 12 million but not quite 13 million. I'm certain the number 12,576,624 provides no more practical information than 12-13 million. That extra 576,624 more than 12 million and 423,376 less than 13 million isn't a big enough number to affect the point the writer is trying to get across.
The smarter compromise Comcast could've made is to throttle bandwidth after a certain cap has been reached. But then they wouldn't be able to make money off of it either.
The people committing suicide are crazy. By definition, they're criminally insane.
But the people up top funding, organizing, and managing the whole thing are brilliant, sane, and probably more rational than most of us. There are perfectly good reasons to dislike the US enough to wage guerilla warfare on its citizens. Now, it'd be a reasonable and noble goal for the US government to stop doing things that tick other people off. However, that's now how things work here. The people who encourage such actions are not the ones who eventually pay the price by getting their asses flowing into a building or blown up. They're the ones sitting atop their mountain palaces secure in their effects while the rest of the world goes to hell. So what do they care that we're down below, getting our asses handed to us, either lightly seared by the terrorists, or wider open than the goatse guy by the people in charge as they try to stop the terrorists.
That would certainly throw the Olympics.
I think people need to justify why the President of the F*cking United States couldn't pull the Olympics for his home city. Customs is a pretty good reason. I have my own opinion, but they can't really outdo the ridiculous situation at the border.
This isn't true. The major cities in Europe have a lot of pickpockets and undesirables looking for tourists to prey off. Major cities in the US tend to be safer in that regard. If you stick to the touristy areas, you'll usually be fine. If you wander off the beaten path, you might get shot, but that's largely your fault for going somewhere everybody else with better sense isn't.
That having been said, I don't feel the small increase in safety is worth my liberties. The reason why people are so willing to give up their liberties for safety (perceived or otherwise) is because they're generally intellectually lazy.
Maybe Chertoff had trouble figuring out what Bush was trying to say and just say, ah fuck it, let's make it hard for everybody to enter.