Xwindows has been ugly since it came out..and I know it wouldn't take much effort to make it look better. It looks so plain and dull
Sure it looks plain and dull to look at X alone, since it has no look. You should try it with one of the popular desktop environments, like KDE or GNOME, or simpler window managers
No need to reimage the system every six months if you know what you're doing.
My mom and dad do not know what they're doing, neither do many of my friends. At work, people who don't know what they are doing get infected and experience random breakage. Those who know what they are doing don't get infected, at least. (See below for environment)
For someone with a decent knowledge of the platform a complete reinstall simply isn't needed
Family's/friends' friends that pretend to know what they are doing in Win usually don't either. Usually they break more things when they try to fix, so in fact a reinstall is the better path to take anyway. At work, it is just easier and faster to just automatically back up, reimage, and restore, than to spend hours debugging things.
if you by random breakage mean that the machine has gotten infected
No, I mean simply bit rot or something. I know many people claim otherwise, but in my experience regular reimages are needed. In my department at work we have 40 XP PCs, basically only running Office, Notes, IE, and not locked down, so people can basically install what they want. Plus, I get to know many things about the 1600 PCs overall that we have in use in the company in this country (of ca. 15000 worldwide, mostly laptops that are also plugged into non-internal networks).
And fact here is, of the 40 PCs in my department, every 2 weeks we need to reimage one. Either something randomly breaks like WMI (which we need to install some stuff), or shutdowns start to last 5 minutes, or PowerPoint starts to crash when you copy a textbox. Etc. The infections come on top of that.
Our IT department is not particularly clueless, and I don't think they can do anything about an Office install suddenly breaking after a few months or a year of heavy use anyway.
Well, I dont know about you, but I believe most people are able to download drivers from the vendor, run setup.exe and reboot.
And that fixes random breakage in, say, WMI? I don't think so. The reality is that Windows gets "fixed" by being reinstalled by a somewhat knowledgeable friend (1). The more savvy Windows home users I know reimage habitually every 6 months.
Even if this practice is not needed with GNU/Linux, it will continue to exist and I think it would be beneficial to somewhat cater to it and make it much easier and cooler than Windows. What I'd like to see in the Ubuntu release after Breezy is a simple app that lets you
Create a CD/DVD image of your finished setup, and a live CD of -your- PC. This should be able to recreate your complete setup from CD/DVD.
Back up/home and/etc, and other (non-standard/changed) directories to external disk, CD/DVD, etc. The non-standard directories could be picked automatically - if/usr/local contains stuff, or the user has created a dir in / that is not there by default, back it up. This should be able to recreate your complete setup from the backup media if you boot from an installer CD, and it should be able to just recover your data if the system itself has not been damaged.
Migrate to a new PC. This would package up all it needs from your old PC on CD/DVD so that you can boot the new PC from the installer CD, and then be prompted to feed it the data from your old PC, to seamlessly recreate your old environment and data on the new PC. It would also be cool if the installer on the new PC could simply pull all this from the old PC over the network. You should be prompted to reinsert the installer CD (or something bootable) into the old PC and choose the option "Remove all my data to protect my privacy". This would wipe/shred the old HD so that you can safely give it away.
(1) And don't get me started on these "knowledgeable" friends. I am so sick debugging my mom's pc over the phone after her "knowledgeable" friend has done something inconceivably stupid in an attempt to fix something
The GPL refers only to the code. Trademarks are not and have never been even a concern for the GPL (or BSD licence for that matter). It has always been well understood that you can take Red Hat's distro and do whatever you want with the code, but that you can't call your linux company Red Hat. Duh.
One more thing to this, "Then there's also nothing stopping me from creating "LinuxDailyNews" and writing about how much Linux sucks in each issue then. That was even one of the supposed reasons for this, to stop anti-linux "news journals" from using the mark. If they aren't going to enforce the mark in this way, it makes you wonder what the purpose of all this even is".
For the context see my long post further down a bit earlier. As I said there, I couldn't find such a clause either, and it's a good thing. I don't want a world where Microsoft can prevent me from saying publically, "Windows sucks", because I infringe their trademark. And I sure as hell don't want Linus to start this (or rather further it, because it already happens for hardware tests, etc., and it sucks)
It's published on the site! I suggest you read it before commenting!
Ok, maybe from now on I should assume I am being trolled, but what the heck. If only for the benefit of anyone who still happens to read this. (hey y!)
In fact, I have read the license before commenting, in contrast to you - either that, or you're a troll, or maybe you have the WORST reading comprehension skills I ever encountered, even on/.
You said, "The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with."
There may even be a grain of truth here: not because of "something they don't agree with". At least I couldn't find a clause that said something about "damaging to the good name of Linux and Linus Torvalds" or some such. I actually would find it ok, if not great (need to hink about this some more) if they had no termination provision for stuff like spyware-ridden but still linux-based products. This probably belongs to the realm of opinion and is to be decided by the marketplace. The license probably should be only concerned with fact.
(...) WHEREAS SUBLICENSEE desires to acquire the right from LMI to use the Linux trademark in connection with the AUTHORIZED GOODS/SERVICES (as defined herein) bearing the Linux mark to the extent SUBLICENSEE's use of the Linux trademark is not considered "fair use." (...)
1. DEFINITIONS (...)
"AUTHORIZED GOODS/SERVICES" means Linux-based goods/services. Linux-based goods are computer systems and software using the Linux kernel either directly from www.kernel.org or with modifications, or packages bundling the Linux kernel with tools, utilities, hardware, or layered software. Linux-based services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance Linux-based goods. (...)
5. TERM AND TERMINATION (...) B. If SUBLICENSEE is in material breach of one or more of its obligations under this Agreement, LMI may, upon its election and in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time terminate this Agreement and all the rights granted hereunder (...)
I.e., sure they can refuse to grant or terminate the license when the licensee uses it for non linux-based products. (And your "Red Hat also uses a non-vanilla kernel FUD" is also right out the window already here, since "Linux kernel with modifications" is explicitly allowed.)
Your other point was "an unsustainable "advertising clause", like the old BSD license that was thrown out". I guess you refer to section 12., "DISPLAY AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS." I dispute this on several grounds:
The issue at hand is not about software, but about trademarks. Trademarks are about advertising, therefore I find your statement nonsensical
The BSD clause was deemed unsustainable because it became clear that F/OSS was going to be constructed from a great number of components of different copyright holders. This does not hold true in the same way for trademarks.
The license agreement states,
C. Recognizing that there may be space limitations, any reasonable facsimile of the language shown in paragraph B of this Section may be used as a substitute where made necessary by such space limitations. In case of doubt as to the proper shortened form, exemplars should be submitted to LMI for approval.
The language in question is,
The registered trademark Linux® is used pursuant to a sublicense from the Linux Mark Institute, the exclusive LICENSEE of Linus Torvalds, owner of the mark in the U.S. and other countries.
I guess this is not too much on a software package, and shortened forms can be negotiated. I guess you and LMI will find an agreement on the proper form for your Linux-powered nanorobots that are delivered without any packaging, advertisment or any other display
Just to add another resource you might be interested in. I can understand if you don't trust Linus in license stuff. I personally am reluctant to do so too, given his history in these things.
However, you might trust Eben Moglen and RMS, who have this to say about the matter:
"The licensing strategy chosen by the Linux Mark Institute, which, as far as I know, has not changed -- despite the recent uptick in interest -- is well-designed to meet that requirement without unduly burdening any business that wants to identify itself and its goods as 'Linux.'"
Wrt your accusations of submarining and turning around, putting the screws on, etc., you might be interested in this slashdot story from 2000 in which Linus, among other things, says this (originally posted to lkml):
"In order to cover the costs of paperwork and the costs of just _tracking_ the trademark issues (and to really make it a legally binding contract in the first place), if you end up going the whole nine yards and think you need your own trademark
protection, there is a rather nominal fee associated with combination mark paperwork etc. That money actually goes to the Linux International trademark fund, so it's not me scalping people if anybody really thought that that might be the case;)"
The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with.
I'd say this entirely depends on the license agreement.
Now suddenly they are putting the screws on, under threat of legal action.
Not suddenly. Of course under threat of legal action, lika all contracts. There are no screws.
You let someone use something for free until it gets popular, then you start asking for money.
Except that it has been announced in 97 or so, as documented in other postings in this story.
Suppose Red Hat decides to license the Linux mark. What they are distributing isn't Linus' Linux kernel, it's their own fork of it. Almost no distro uses the vanilla kernel.
Which doesn't matter as long as Linus grants a sublicense.
So there's nothing stopping BadCompany (a paid licensee) from loading up their version of the kernel with spyware, and whatever else might reflect badly on Linux, and distributing that. To try to prevent them would be the same as forcing Red Hat to use the vanilla kernel.
Yes there is: Linus can simply not grant or revoke the license.
What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.
In the context of trademarks, it is very well defined: it's simply everything Linus gives license for
What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.
It is well documented that it is about preventing others from hijacking the trademark. Read up on the della Croce case, also documented in the other comments. For your convenience: http://www.google.com/search?q=Della+Croce+Linux+t rademark&
Well, yes it is. A business operates in the world of currently valid laws, regardless of what you, I, or the business thinks of these laws. I.e., if you use patented technology willingly, then yes, the costs are an operating expense.
if this was some chickenshit company trying to extract $200 from every nonprofit that tried to use an HTML form, it wouldn't fly.
Your anology falls down completely because
This is not about patents
This was not submarine: as documented in various posts (in threads you also posted to, therefore I won't repeat it) there was a real attempt to hijack the trademark in 1996, and soon after this, Linus announced that he would protect the trademark.
We are not talking about using an HTML form, but about using the Linux trademark which has its value because of thousands of man-years invested over a period of 14 years.
Using the Linux code continues to not cost a dime. Using the Linux trademark can cost something.
If you read Linus' mail to lkml (linked to ca. 100 times in the comments to this story), and you'll see that you don't even need to request a sublicense even if you create BadCompany Linux. You just get no protection for that name either (because, if you need protection, you need to file for a trademark which can't be granted without a sublicense, because "Linux" is already trademarked)
I don't understand why you are so bent on allowing BadCompany to create a proprietary "BadCompany Linux" without a single line of Linux code in it and without any chance to prevent this.
And btw, my post was not at all concerned with the Linux trademark issue. Just about the fact that regardless of what you think of the rules, for a business, the license fees simply are a normal operating expense.
I think what the GP meant that since the license costs are required and calculable operating costs such as hardware and paper, it's not not entirely true to say "it takes away from my profits", in the same way as it would be misleading to say the paper comapnies steal your profit.
GNU predates the Linux kernel, by 7 years, both as actual code and, more importantly, as an idea. The idea to create a free Unix-like system from scratch and envision it as a complete system, GNU, is the reason for Stallman's request to name the now-existing system GNU/Linux (and not, as so often erroneously and irresponsibly repeated on slashdot, the fact that this system contains a lot of GNU code), see "Linux and the GNU project" (bold font by me)
One CD-ROM vendor found that in their "Linux distribution", GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be "GNU".
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did that. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting components because you can't have a system without them. Some of our system components, the programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we wrote many components that are not tools.(...) When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, he filled the last major gap. People could then put Linux together with the GNU system to make a complete free system: a Linux-based version of the GNU system; the GNU/Linux system, for short. The earliest Linux release notes recognized that Linux was a kernel, used with parts of GNU: "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info.
Can't mod parent AC up, so I copy cuz it's important: "Umm, Linus doesn't own "the Linux copyright". He certainly owns the copyright on some of the linux code, just as Alan Cox owns some, and several hundred other people also own some."
(...) You've got "fag" and "mummy's boy" written all over you (...)
Get to know some women with an interest in male-dominated professions, or any women at all, and then we can talk. Otherwise it makes little sense for me.
Wikipedia is dominated by men Lol, thanks for making my point
PC never went overboard in the UK You are of course free to talk about anything, but it would help if you talked about the same thing as I, if we are to have a discussions. Where did the UK come from?
You're fucked boy... start behaving like a man instead of a pussy-whipped homo. Seriously, you'll feel better about yourself.
As said before, if you should get older than 18, you'll find out about women if you change your attitude. Otherwise, I don't care anyway
Geez, people, learn to distinguish Copyright - Patent - Trademark - Trade Secret! It's not that hard and pretty important if you want to discuss stuff. I thought cognitive sciences has shown that most people can keep ca. 5 items in their mind at any time.
When you grow up and adjust your attitudes, girls might actually get interested in you, and you'll have some experience to talk from. E.g., you might find out that girls are into a lot of the same, or similar at least, things as you are, but are discouraged from expressing their interest due to the dominant image of womanhood/girlhood. This goes for maths, CS, and physics as well as for pr0n.
Actually I'm not PC at all, at least not in the sense you Americans understand it. See, people here in general have not been fucked up as much as you are, and the PC thing never went as overboard as in the US, nor was there a need to. I agree that sometimes there is a need to annoy the puritans who you in the US let overtake the notion of "being kind to one another if possible", and turn it into fascist PCism, but nevertheless I will react to homophobia, and calling people "fags" obviously is - after all, you meant it as an insult, and it can only be one if you think it is. Myself, I just feel sorry for you.
Besides, if you dispute my numbers (and I just googled them and am not in the position nor do I care to prove them right or wrong), how about providing your own instead of simply extrapolating your own anecdotal evidence?
Wrt to missing his point, the OP said that this Wikipedia marketing article wouldn't matter since the game is targeted at 14-18 yr old girls, who, he asserted, do not frequent Wikipedia. This is blatently wrong.
Beside the point, at least mine, which was to call you on your sexist assumptions.
National School Boards Foundation "Key Finding 4: Girls use the Internet as much as boys, but in different ways. In fact, the Internet may be one of the few public places where girls are equally as involved as boys. The findings suggest that girls are comfortable and competent on the Internet. According to their parents, 48 percent of nine- to 12-year-old boys and girls are online, while 71 percent of 13- to 17-year-old boys and girls are online. Both younger and older girls seem just as likely to use the Internet as their male counterparts; 50 percent of nine- to 12-year-old girls use the Internet, compared to 46 percent of boys. In the 13- to 17-year-old age bracket, 73 percent of girls use the Internet, compared to 70 percent of boys. Overall, there is no statistical difference between the proportion of girls and boys who use the Internet: Clearly, both parents and educators need to shed any remaining stereotypes about technology-phobic girls when it comes to the Internet."
Slashdot Mirror
It sucks that you want to buy and the /. owners have already bought, right? :)
Xwindows has been ugly since it came out..and I know it wouldn't take much effort to make it look better. It looks so plain and dull
Sure it looks plain and dull to look at X alone, since it has no look. You should try it with one of the popular desktop environments, like KDE or GNOME, or simpler window managers
No need to reimage the system every six months if you know what you're doing.
My mom and dad do not know what they're doing, neither do many of my friends.
At work, people who don't know what they are doing get infected and experience random breakage. Those who know what they are doing don't get infected, at least. (See below for environment)
For someone with a decent knowledge of the platform a complete reinstall simply isn't needed
Family's/friends' friends that pretend to know what they are doing in Win usually don't either. Usually they break more things when they try to fix, so in fact a reinstall is the better path to take anyway.
At work, it is just easier and faster to just automatically back up, reimage, and restore, than to spend hours debugging things.
if you by random breakage mean that the machine has gotten infected
No, I mean simply bit rot or something. I know many people claim otherwise, but in my experience regular reimages are needed. In my department at work we have 40 XP PCs, basically only running Office, Notes, IE, and not locked down, so people can basically install what they want.
Plus, I get to know many things about the 1600 PCs overall that we have in use in the company in this country (of ca. 15000 worldwide, mostly laptops that are also plugged into non-internal networks).
And fact here is, of the 40 PCs in my department, every 2 weeks we need to reimage one. Either something randomly breaks like WMI (which we need to install some stuff), or shutdowns start to last 5 minutes, or PowerPoint starts to crash when you copy a textbox. Etc. The infections come on top of that.
Our IT department is not particularly clueless, and I don't think they can do anything about an Office install suddenly breaking after a few months or a year of heavy use anyway.
And that fixes random breakage in, say, WMI? I don't think so. The reality is that Windows gets "fixed" by being reinstalled by a somewhat knowledgeable friend (1). The more savvy Windows home users I know reimage habitually every 6 months.
Even if this practice is not needed with GNU/Linux, it will continue to exist and I think it would be beneficial to somewhat cater to it and make it much easier and cooler than Windows. What I'd like to see in the Ubuntu release after Breezy is a simple app that lets you
It would also be cool if the installer on the new PC could simply pull all this from the old PC over the network.
You should be prompted to reinsert the installer CD (or something bootable) into the old PC and choose the option "Remove all my data to protect my privacy". This would wipe/shred the old HD so that you can safely give it away.
(1) And don't get me started on these "knowledgeable" friends. I am so sick debugging my mom's pc over the phone after her "knowledgeable" friend has done something inconceivably stupid in an attempt to fix something
And XP uptake was sloooow, esp. in businesses
I once worked at Frequentis. They had a company kindergarten and let the kids play with the air traffic control test systems as part of QA
The GPL refers only to the code. Trademarks are not and have never been even a concern for the GPL (or BSD licence for that matter). It has always been well understood that you can take Red Hat's distro and do whatever you want with the code, but that you can't call your linux company Red Hat. Duh.
One more thing to this, "Then there's also nothing stopping me from creating "LinuxDailyNews" and writing about how much Linux sucks in each issue then. That was even one of the supposed reasons for this, to stop anti-linux "news journals" from using the mark. If they aren't going to enforce the mark in this way, it makes you wonder what the purpose of all this even is".
For the context see my long post further down a bit earlier. As I said there, I couldn't find such a clause either, and it's a good thing. I don't want a world where Microsoft can prevent me from saying publically, "Windows sucks", because I infringe their trademark. And I sure as hell don't want Linus to start this (or rather further it, because it already happens for hardware tests, etc., and it sucks)
Ok, maybe from now on I should assume I am being trolled, but what the heck. If only for the benefit of anyone who still happens to read this. (hey y!)
In fact, I have read the license before commenting, in contrast to you - either that, or you're a troll, or maybe you have the WORST reading comprehension skills I ever encountered, even on
You said, "The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with."
There may even be a grain of truth here: not because of "something they don't agree with". At least I couldn't find a clause that said something about "damaging to the good name of Linux and Linus Torvalds" or some such.
I actually would find it ok, if not great (need to hink about this some more) if they had no termination provision for stuff like spyware-ridden but still linux-based products. This probably belongs to the realm of opinion and is to be decided by the marketplace. The license probably should be only concerned with fact.
And there is a fact-based termination provision. From the sublicense agreement:
I.e., sure they can refuse to grant or terminate the license when the licensee uses it for non linux-based products. (And your "Red Hat also uses a non-vanilla kernel FUD" is also right out the window already here, since "Linux kernel with modifications" is explicitly allowed.)
Your other point was "an unsustainable "advertising clause", like the old BSD license that was thrown out". I guess you refer to section 12., "DISPLAY AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS."
I dispute this on several grounds:
The language in question is,I guess this is not too much on a software package, and shortened forms can be negotiated. I guess you and LMI will find an agreement on the proper form for your Linux-powered nanorobots that are delivered without any packaging, advertisment or any other display
Wrt your accusations of submarining and turning around, putting the screws on, etc., you might be interested in this slashdot story from 2000 in which Linus, among other things, says this (originally posted to lkml):
I don't see how you can justify your accusations
The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with.
I'd say this entirely depends on the license agreement.
Now suddenly they are putting the screws on, under threat of legal action.
Not suddenly. Of course under threat of legal action, lika all contracts. There are no screws.
You let someone use something for free until it gets popular, then you start asking for money.
t rademark&
Except that it has been announced in 97 or so, as documented in other postings in this story.
Suppose Red Hat decides to license the Linux mark. What they are distributing isn't Linus' Linux kernel, it's their own fork of it. Almost no distro uses the vanilla kernel.
Which doesn't matter as long as Linus grants a sublicense.
So there's nothing stopping BadCompany (a paid licensee) from loading up their version of the kernel with spyware, and whatever else might reflect badly on Linux, and distributing that. To try to prevent them would be the same as forcing Red Hat to use the vanilla kernel.
Yes there is: Linus can simply not grant or revoke the license.
What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.
In the context of trademarks, it is very well defined: it's simply everything Linus gives license for
What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.
It is well documented that it is about preventing others from hijacking the trademark. Read up on the della Croce case, also documented in the other comments. For your convenience: http://www.google.com/search?q=Della+Croce+Linux+
Well, yes it is. A business operates in the world of currently valid laws, regardless of what you, I, or the business thinks of these laws. I.e., if you use patented technology willingly, then yes, the costs are an operating expense.
if this was some chickenshit company trying to extract $200 from every nonprofit that tried to use an HTML form, it wouldn't fly.
Your anology falls down completely because
I don't understand why you are so bent on allowing BadCompany to create a proprietary "BadCompany Linux" without a single line of Linux code in it and without any chance to prevent this.
And btw, my post was not at all concerned with the Linux trademark issue. Just about the fact that regardless of what you think of the rules, for a business, the license fees simply are a normal operating expense.
not some bullshit about what percentage is the kernel vrs what percentage is the ancillary system software.
You didn't even read or understand what I wrote, so I guess there is no point debating.
I think what the GP meant that since the license costs are required and calculable operating costs such as hardware and paper, it's not not entirely true to say "it takes away from my profits", in the same way as it would be misleading to say the paper comapnies steal your profit.
Sigh
GNU predates the Linux kernel, by 7 years, both as actual code and, more importantly, as an idea. The idea to create a free Unix-like system from scratch and envision it as a complete system, GNU, is the reason for Stallman's request to name the now-existing system GNU/Linux (and not, as so often erroneously and irresponsibly repeated on slashdot, the fact that this system contains a lot of GNU code), see "Linux and the GNU project" (bold font by me)
Can't mod parent AC up, so I copy cuz it's important:
"Umm, Linus doesn't own "the Linux copyright". He certainly owns the copyright on some of the linux code, just as Alan Cox owns some, and several hundred other people also own some."
Beagle http://www.beaglewiki.org/. Needs mono and as of yet can be some work to set up, depending on distro
Beagle http://www.beaglewiki.org/
(...) You've got "fag" and "mummy's boy" written all over you (...)
Get to know some women with an interest in male-dominated professions, or any women at all, and then we can talk. Otherwise it makes little sense for me.
Wikipedia is dominated by men
Lol, thanks for making my point
PC never went overboard in the UK
You are of course free to talk about anything, but it would help if you talked about the same thing as I, if we are to have a discussions. Where did the UK come from?
You're fucked boy... start behaving like a man instead of a pussy-whipped homo. Seriously, you'll feel better about yourself.
As said before, if you should get older than 18, you'll find out about women if you change your attitude. Otherwise, I don't care anyway
No, there it was about patents.
Geez, people, learn to distinguish Copyright - Patent - Trademark - Trade Secret! It's not that hard and pretty important if you want to discuss stuff. I thought cognitive sciences has shown that most people can keep ca. 5 items in their mind at any time.
One for you: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedians#Gender_ and_sexuality
When you grow up and adjust your attitudes, girls might actually get interested in you, and you'll have some experience to talk from. E.g., you might find out that girls are into a lot of the same, or similar at least, things as you are, but are discouraged from expressing their interest due to the dominant image of womanhood/girlhood.
This goes for maths, CS, and physics as well as for pr0n.
Actually I'm not PC at all, at least not in the sense you Americans understand it. See, people here in general have not been fucked up as much as you are, and the PC thing never went as overboard as in the US, nor was there a need to. I agree that sometimes there is a need to annoy the puritans who you in the US let overtake the notion of "being kind to one another if possible", and turn it into fascist PCism, but nevertheless I will react to homophobia, and calling people "fags" obviously is - after all, you meant it as an insult, and it can only be one if you think it is. Myself, I just feel sorry for you.
Besides, if you dispute my numbers (and I just googled them and am not in the position nor do I care to prove them right or wrong), how about providing your own instead of simply extrapolating your own anecdotal evidence?
Wrt to missing his point, the OP said that this Wikipedia marketing article wouldn't matter since the game is targeted at 14-18 yr old girls, who, he asserted, do not frequent Wikipedia.
This is blatently wrong.
Way to talk out of your AC. See my other post for a more realistic picture.
Funny how homophobia and misogyny always fo together.
Beside the point, at least mine, which was to call you on your sexist assumptions.
National School Boards Foundation
"Key Finding 4: Girls use the Internet as much as boys, but in different ways. In fact, the Internet may be one of the few public places where girls are equally as involved as boys. The findings suggest that girls are comfortable and competent on the Internet. According to their parents, 48 percent of nine- to 12-year-old boys and girls are online, while 71 percent of 13- to 17-year-old boys and girls are online. Both younger and older girls seem just as likely to use the Internet as their male counterparts; 50 percent of nine- to 12-year-old girls use the Internet, compared to 46 percent of boys. In the 13- to 17-year-old age bracket, 73 percent of girls use the Internet, compared to 70 percent of boys. Overall, there is no statistical difference between the proportion of girls and boys who use the Internet: Clearly, both parents and educators need to shed any remaining stereotypes about technology-phobic girls when it comes to the Internet."