See subject & that quoted from you above: I merely stated fact (get over it).
What fact, that XP is no longer supported? I never argued that. I also stated a fact: XP is still used on ~17% of computers worldwide. I'll let you (Mr. Security Guy) soak that up.
Don't you have something BETTER to show for yourself than this
No, you don't... & you never will - you don't have the skills necessary to create something that good )
I hope you choke to death on your ego. You don't know me, nor what skills I have; did it ever cross your mind that I'm not some egomaniac, like you, who needs to flaunt my "skills" to feel good about myself? Only my employer, clients, and prospective clients (none of which includes you) need to know that. Your app looks like a piece of shit our of the 90's, by the way; I'm pretty sure you have better things to do than be a dick on Slashdot (like, maybe, fix your app's UI), so why don't you do that?.
P.S.=> I find it entertaining when a "ne'er-do-well" tries to put words in my mouth I never stated, & also doesn't have a pot to piss in by comparison to wares I've done (that you never have OR will)... apk
What words did I put in your mouth? As for the number of pots I have to piss in, not that it's relevant, but I'm in the process of upgrading to a bigger box with more piss pots as I type this. Again, you don't know me, but keep trolling. With your propensity for lashing out with unprovoked personal attacks, it's a wonder you don't spend more time in the hospital; I'm guessing you only behave so disrespectfully online? Let me tell you, it doesn't instill confidence in the quality of your software.
I used to think you were, at least, entertaining. Then you replied to one of my comments and I suddenly lost all respect for you. Seriously, seek help dude. And there was really no need for you to make this personal, especially given that you don't know me.
Also - See subject? Good! "Drink it in, & digest it"...
I've been off of XP for years, but nearly 1/5 of computers still use it. I don't see how you can say it doesn't matter that nearly 1/5 of computers in the world will go unpatched.
This article makes it SOUND as if it's "just happened & wasn't patched"
And the summary (which is what most of us read anyway) does not. The first two words of the article article (actually some guy's blog post) are "Patching time." That's followed by a quote from the MSSB about the exploit, then "Details are withheld for now, so it's a race: patch your systems before the attackers can reverse engineer the Windows patch." The rest of the post consists of links to the MSSB and CVE for the exploit; the post was later updated with exploit details. I'm not quite sure how directly mentioning patching your systems, and saying it's a race between you (getting your systems patched) and hackers (reverse engineering the patch) implies that a patch doesn't exist; in fact it straight-up says a patch does exist.
You know, I never understood why people seemed so annoyed by your posts. I've always found you somewhat entertaining. But, then, this is the first time you've replied to one of my posts. Now I get it. Don't you have a HOSTS file to update or something?
Again, we weren't discussing racism, we were discussing sexism, thus why I didn't take much time to express my position. Yes, it all boils down to control and power, that was bad wording on my part, but it does not invalidate my stance on sexism. Can we get back on topic?
Oh, wow, I got a response from the famed APK. I feel like I should be honored and, yet, I'm not.
Somehow, Heartbleed and Shellshock mattered, even though they were patched the very same day they were disclosed, but this doesn't matter for the same reason?
As for your claim of purest bullshit, I'm pretty sure the summary clarified that there was a patch already available by stating:
An update (KB3042553) is already available
with the caveat of only being available for:
all supported editions of Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows 8, Windows Server 2012, Windows 8.1, and Windows Server 2012 R2
Looks like the ~17% of users still on XP are boned this time. I see why you say the *NIX "trolls" don't have a valid point here, though, I mean only nearly 1/5 of all computers, globally, will remain unpatched.
So then help me understand. First you outline the history and then say it doesn't matter because it's "40 years ago"?
I can't help you understand why I said something I didn't say, sorry.
That's simply not true. Structural inequities don't just disappear because the people who put them in place died off.
What I claimed and what you're claiming is not true are two different things. Of course they don't die off once the people who put them in place (that would be the first people to carry out the inequities) are removed from power; they die off, as I said, after the last people to carry out the inequities are removed from power.
Do you believe the structural inequities caused by 200 years of slaver disappeared 40 years after the Emancipation Proclamation?
No, many of the men and women who were slaves, who were not allowed an education, were still in their 20's (and thus too old to be allowed a primary education at that point) when the proclamation was signed into law. Many of them lived well into their 80's, so it was at least 60 years before that was fully recovered.
Because Jim Crow lasted over 80 more years
You mean segregation, which was made illegal by the passing of the so-called Jim Crow Law? Yes, Jim Crow was about segregation, which was about racism, while the Emancipation Proclamation released slaves from slavery, which was about control and power, two very different battles the black population had to fight in this country. You're not making yourself look all that bright by combining them.
and 130 years later we still have lynchings in the form of police murdering unarmed black men
Or so the media coverage would have you believe. The fact is that police shoot people they shouldn't shoot all the damn time; it only gets multi-week national coverage when it's a white cop shooting a black man. That's not to say racism isn't still an issue, it mote certainly still is; and yes, there even still exist racist cops, so yes, somewhat of a majority of police shootings involve black victims.
I never denied any of this, but you go right on ahead and make up arguments for me, so you can tear those down instead of actually addressing what I'm saying. It's tragic, yes, but, other than not perpetuating it myself, what do you propose I do about it? Be realistic and understand that I'm not a man of unlimited means, despite being a white male.
Yes, there's a fair bit of slack to pick up with regard to racism today, and it's something that both sides will need to work together on; but, we're not talking about the black population, here; we're talking about women, so please don't try to confuse the issue.
This is a good metaphor. The problem is the numbers I posted a few comments back prove that the thumb still hasn't been removed from the side of the scale that has favored men all this time.
No, the numbers you posted a few comments back show the steady improvement I stated we could expect as the purveyors of this particular issue began to fall out of power, which has been steadily happening for the past decade or so and is continuing to happen as time goes on. Like I said, I'll eat those words in a decade if I'm proven wrong at that time. I don't think I'll need to skip any dinners to make room, though. Thank you for finally actually addressing my words and the actual meaning behind them, for once, though. Finally.
Using your scale metaphor, think about a scale that is way out of balance. One side is heavier than the other. How do you bring the scale into balance except adding weight to the side that is light or removing weight from the side that is heavy?
Well, that weight has been steadily being removed from the other side for some time, now. That's one of your "other than" options, is it not? It's also t
So it's right to favor a woman, who may or may not have faced the same adversity as the "average" woman, over a man who may or may not have faced the same adversity as the "average" man? With no regard for the reality of what each of them faced as individuals? You're just opening yourself up to being exploited if that's how you view it. Women are very much our equals in today's society; it really can't be helped that some people holding tenured positions they took on decades ago haven't caught up, but that's a problem that will solve itself as those people retire and/or die off. Saying that women need special treatment because they're not truly our equals makes you a part of the problem. It also leads to a future imbalance in the opposite direction, which future generations will have an even harder time cleaning up, as it will be backed by all of today's history.
You're right, though. You can't discern one's background from a resume, that's why you call *both* candidates in for interviews, and not just the one you assume saw more adversity. If your interview process doesn't, at least to some degree, cover background, that's something you need to fix within your organization. Who knows, maybe you're right and the woman did face more challenges, but having to overcome them has made her a bad fit, culturally, within your organization. The same could be true of the man, but your way of thinking means you'll never know and would end up hiring the woman regardless, possibly opening up the men in your workplace to frivolous harassment claims, or worse.
That's why getting to know a candidates actual background, and not just what you assume, is important. Most women who are qualified for a position are as employable as men who are equally qualified for that position, but the handful of femnazis out there who will move in and claim harassment when a man so much as says hello to her really do ruin it for everyone. Assuming that the woman will automatically be a better fit is not only as sexist as not considering her in the first place, it's also at least as dangerous, if not moreso.
When downshifting to shed speed *quickly* and without jarring the engine (you can't rev-match when you're already revving high), yes. In essentially emergency conditions, not in normal driving. To be clear, I've never replaced a clutch in a vehicle I hadn't *just* purchased, and then only as a precaution; clearly I know how to not burn up my clutch, even in the face of some very hard driving. And yes, I rebuilt a tranny at 9, but keep with the personal attacks.
You do realize that DOT3 and DOT4 fluids are hygroscopic and will rust out the lines from the inside if not replaced every few years, right? The car I was driving was one my friend was buying to restore and the lines had rotted out due to the same fluid being left to sit in the thing while it was parked for 5 years. The first time he pushed down the break pedal, two of them popped. Aside from some body work, the lines, and the clutch (being of questionable status), the car was in decent and drivable condition, we got it back to his place without incident, and the restoration was a fair success. He went with DOT5 fluid in the brakes and clutch (after converting the clutch from a cabled system) to avoid any such issues (or maintenance requirements) in the future.
You've made some assumptions here, which may have incorrectly colored your opinion. That, or, perhaps your limited experience. Either way, I don't really need to prove anything to you, I know what my experience has been and that will always outweigh whatever you or anyone else thinks my experience may have been.
So history didn't exist before you were born? You should not let your lack of first-hand experience in something prevent you from having some understanding.
What the fuck do you think I meant when I said this?
Of course. Because 40 years ago, when the generation of men and women who would be in those positions today were graduating form high school, more of the men continued their education in order to qualify themselves for those positions. Mind you I'm not blaming women; it was socially unacceptable, at the time, for a woman to be educated. That was wrong and it has been corrected, but that doesn't retroactively educate women who did miss out on that opportunity, nor does it qualify those same women for those positions. It's unfortunate, but it's also not a situation faced by women of more recent generations. That is to say, yes, that particular problem has been fixed; we simply aren't far enough ahead to see the results of that yet.
That's a statement that the history you allude to, which you claim I'm denying, is a reality. It's also a show of understanding that this history is the cause of today's problem. You just go right ahead and keep seeing my "white male privilege" instead of my words and actions, though, since that suits your position so much better than reality.
That era, when women didn't have the same educational opportunities as men, existed in my lifetime. It existed alongside lynchings, blacks being denied service at lunch counters and being systematically denied the right to vote.
Yes, and it was a horrible time in history and I'm glad it's behind us now.
How long do you think it takes for a structural inequality to drain out of a society?
However long it takes the last generation to have caused the issue to fall out of power. Generally, this means the majority of them retiring and/or dying off.
And do you really blame people for trying to move that process forward?
Only those, like yourself, who would see that done by way of introducing yet more structural inequality. That's the problem we're trying to solve; introducing more of it does not do that. Sadly, that means we have to be the best, most equality-driven people we can be and wait it out while the past dies off, lest we leave a similar (but opposite) mess for future generations to deal with; only, the mess we'd leave for future generations would have the current history backing it up, making it even more difficult for them to deal with sanely.
To put it another way, if you have an imbalanced scale that you're watching (even if slowly) return to balance after the excess weight was removed from one side, adding weight to the other side will not make it return to balance faster; it will only result in the imbalance swinging to the other side.
That may be true for most people, but as someone who uses *all* of the tools, I can tell you I'm certainly using the ones that work best. Your Cisco example is weak simply for the fact that part of "working" is being supported comfortably, which is clearly not the case for you when it comes to Cisco gear, so Cisco simply doesn't work for you. That's fair, as well.
I totally get the issues with zealotry amongst Apple users. I have a friend who thinks Apple can do no wrong; he's one of the brightest people I know and it pains me to see him so blindly following when I've come to know him as a leader. That doesn't stop me from using the tools, though, i just know I have to be careful in how and when I go about suggesting them.
Plus so-called male privilege, don't forget. Middle class is money, as well.
I was raised in a lower middle class household, I know I had an easier childhood than many, if not most. The day I moved out, though, I was on my own and wishing I'd faced more adversity growing up, as it would have made the shit I dealt with in my early adulthood much easier for me. Adversity isn't always a bad thing, you see.
Good to meet someone who's on the same page, then. Sadly, it was hard to pick out the sarcasm, I've actually seen people respond affirmatively to those types of arguments, as though the TSA were actually the right response.
Yes, you can also buy the tools to bend the short lengths of straight lines you can get at the parts store into the correct shape, and the connectors to attach them together. Of course, when you're talking about 10 feet of overall line length, that's five 24" segments, bent less accurately than a factory part and perhaps slightly too long, leading to incorrect fitment making them more likely to snag on something while driving (road debris happens, y'know). That's not to mention that a compression fitting in the middle of a line is prone to failure as the weight of the fitting causes the lines to sag and stress the compression joint. Then we're adding 8 additional compression joints to the line (2 per fitting), all of those being of the low-reliability type I just described. Personally, having had one of those compression fit repair lines fail the same day it was installed (the end of the "repair" line snapped when I hit a bump) I'd rather know I have bad brakes than think I have good brakes. Potentially being the person in front of me when the "repaired" line fails, you should want the same. The correct lines were a dealer-only special order, they were expensive and it took a week to get them, but at least I knew it was safe to drive normally after they were installed. But if you want to trust side-of-the-road repairs with incorrect "patch-em-up" parts, installed with most likely the wrong tools, and compression fittings installed in an environment where bits of grit are likely to get stuck in the connector and prevent a proper seal, well you go right ahead and do that, just don't drive on the same roads as me or my family while doing so.
I've been repairing vehicles for as long as I've been able to walk. I started with simple things like changing turn signal bulbs when I was 2 and rebuilt my first transmission when I was 9. If you want to go toe to toe, I'm game.
If you know how to downshift it is no harder on the clutch then any other shift.
Doing it smoothly and as a form of braking actually is. Doing so in the course of normal driving? You're absolutely correct.
For all the trolls that keep screaming about how insecure Linux is when a vulnerability is discovered in something like Bash (which is used by the BSDs, including OSX, and can also run on Windows), OpenSSL (a library used by many applications which run on many platforms, but not used by Linux itself), or any other library or application capable of running on the platform, please allow me to take thos opportunity to point out that this is a critical vulnerability in Windows itself and not just some 3rd-party application or library. Still feel superior? Also consider that Windows libraries and applications are rife with exploits, as well.
Now that the trolls are dealt with, let me point out that every platform has flaws. Every single one. They were all written by humans and humans are inherently flawed. That's just a fact of life. Further, an operating system is a god damn tool, not an ideology. Who cares if someone uses Craftsman, Snap-On, or generic stuff from Harbor Freight? Nobody. So why all the fighting between over OSes? It's a tool, you pick the one that works best for you for a particular task, and you use it. Who gives a flying rat's ass what tool someone else decides to use for whatever task(s) they need to carry out?
Personally, I use whatever OS suits a given task. For me, it's (currently, as this has been known to change as each platform improves) OS X for the desktop, Linux for my servers (though I've been eying a jump to one of the BSDs lately), and Windows pretty much for testing and the handful of occasional-use apps that don't run anywhere else. Windows isn't a tool I have much of a use for these days, but it's still just a tool and, while I feel there are better options, I recognize that those aren't options for everyone, so, let them use Windows if they so choose (or require).
I'm really not sure what's so difficult about that.
Yes, the gun in my face was real both times. So was the fact that the first time it was a group of three thugs, and the second time was a guy who was clearly tweaked out on some shit. Race doesn't matter here but yes, since I know it will be asked, they were all black. I've also been falsely arrested (okay, I'll claim the benefit here, as I wasn't shot in the back) and jerked around by the legal system, can't get a loan to save my life despite having plenty of income and nothing negative on my credit report and, really, aside from the whole "not getting shot by the cops that one time" thing, seem to be quite cut off from the benefits everyone says I should have as a white male.
Don't assume that just because I'm a white male I haven't seem any hardship and just have everything handed to me.
As for your second link, yeah my maid is so late she might never get here. Maybe because I don't have one. The bottom of my foot does itch, though. If I ever bought an island, I'd, of course, remember to fill it with people. I'd start with you, then follow with the rest of the racists and sexists.
Of course, Paul, you come from money, so all of that really probably does apply to you. I'm so glad you've had such an easy life, just please don't assume everyone else has, too.
I hope you nearly choked to death on that sarcasm because I nearly choked to death laughing at it. And if that wasn't sarcasm, let me remind you that those of us with our shoulders not held firmly against our buttocks by our heads would much prefer constant freedom with occasional spikes of terror to today's current system of constant low levels of terror with the occasional glimpse of freedom.
Eh? It's a fact that, in a time before I was even born, the world was a different place. Guess who had no hand in that? Me. I'm doing what I can to make it a better place now, for everyone; admittedly, that's not much, but it seems you'd rather I either singlehandedly fix the problem by going back in time and making it so it never happened in the first place, ot bow out and do nothing. That's just retarded. Did you skip the rest of the paragraph you quoted that from? Clearly, I was lacking irony when I wrote that because I was stating a fact; and the words that out-of-context bit was sandwiched between make it quite clear that I think that was wrong.
If the only way you can argue this very serious topic is by playing children's games with context and twisting my words to imply shit I never said, I'm out. Go get hit by a bus or something, the equality movement will do much better without you. I say this not as an adversary, but as someone on the same side of the equality issue as you.
No, but I should be free to if I do.
If not, then put up with it. It's an extra what, two minutes? Suck it up for freedom.
If the TSA agents were the ones "sucking it up", well, it'd take a bit longer than two minutes but I might be okay with it. That said, I sincerely hope your entire post was meant to be sarcastic, as the TSA is the antithesis of freedom (as well as security). True, they're the reason there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11-01; they're what the terrorists want and we gate it to them so easily, there's been no need for further attacks since then.
half that list are still politically correct and encouraged targets for discrimination
Depending on your political leaning, the entire list is. That's not the point, nor do I think it's right. Rather than sit here and list every little possible difference upon which someone could possible be discriminated against, I chose to round out the list with the final item in the list: "or, well, really, anything other than a direct comparison of the shit two people have been through". I did this specifically so I could not be called out for insinuating that it was okay to discriminate based on traits not specifically mentioned in my list, as a necessity because there are simply too many to list in a reasonable-length post, so I just threw out the "big" ones and a blanket to cover everything else.
Except that the complaint, here, is that women and minorities aren't being allowed to play. Changing the players is precisely what people are calling for and your failure to see that is precisely why your ideas fail.
The problem is not that white males have more opportunities available to them. The problem is that white males are more likely to game the system to their advantage.
I have a name whose female variants are far more common, and so I add Mr. to my resume to significantly improve the response rate.
Just like that, actually.
I just think we have a problem, a big one...
That you just admitted to being a part of.
...and my empathy for my fellow sentient beings is sufficient that I think that giving a few decades of unearned advantage to those who are being systematically discriminated against is a small price to pay to help equalize the playing field going forward.
But it isn't sufficient enough to prevent you from gaming the system and taking advantage of that discrimination?
Women have been discriminated against for centuries, arguably millenia...
And you seem happy to take advantage of that fact.
...and there are no easy answers.
You're right, there aren't, but refusing to participate in that discrimination is a damn good start. Try it?
Are you really going to argue that suffering a few decades of "reverse" discrimination is too high a price to pay to at least take a stab at giving the next generation a fair shot?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's still discrimination, any way you slice it. It's also quite hilarious that you would, in the same paragraph in which you admit to being part of the problem, suggest that I pay penance for your sins.
Basically, what your argument boils down to is "But, but.... but... Determining who's actually doing the wrong thing here and just punishing them is tooooooooooooooooo haaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd. Why can't we just hold everybody back?" And the simple answer for that is that it's simply not right to punish a group for the actions of of the individual. Especially when it is the guilty individual calling for others to share in their own punishment.
Why would you? Why would any privileged class ever assume that anyone has it harder than them? That's part of the privilege: You don't have to think about it.
Way to ignore context. Not sure whether to call you a dumbass or an asshole. I never said nobody has it harder than I do, I said I don't assume that based on skin color or gender. I also don't assume anyone had it easier than me based on those factors, either; in fact, I said as much right in the text you quoted.
Thanks for the comparison to Mitt Romney, though. Even though I think the man's an ass, I could only ever dream of being as successful and well known as him. He's also not wrong that anyone can achieve what he has by working for it; some will have to work harder, in fact most will. Even most white males, mind you, he did have more advantages than most. The corollary to that, and the more important point, is that nobody can achieve his position without working for it. I don't have it in me to put forth the effort required to achieve that position in life and, honestly I'm satisfied where I am, so I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm sure I'd enjoy that position, as well, but it's not where I am and I don't see much benefit to it, when compared with the extra work involved in getting there. I'm not going to complain and say it's owed to me for some off-the-wall reason, though; I'm not there because I didn't put forth the effort to get there. Period.
It's mostly men who are giving out the PhDs
Apparently, as you say:
despite the fact that women are getting more PhDs than men.
they're giving them to women.
It's mostly men who are in tenure track positions
Of course. Because 40 years ago, when the generation of men and women who would be in those positions today were graduating form high school, more of the men continued their education in order to qualify themselves for those positions. Mind you I'm not blaming women; it was socially unacceptable, at the time, for a woman to be educated. That was wrong and it has been corrected, but that doesn't retroactively educate women who did miss out on that opportunity, nor does it qualify those same women for those positions. It's unfortunate, but it's also not a situation faced by women of more recent generations. That is to say, yes, that particular problem has been fixed; we simply aren't far enough ahead to see the results of that yet.
and it's mostly men who comprise academic administrations
See above.
I'll eat those words 10 years from now if I'm proven wrong.
So maybe, there is no "reverse discrimination" (as if such a thing could exist)
And you quote it as though it wasn't something you introduced to the conversation. You must think the people who read your comments are idiots who wouldn't catch on to that tactic. Tisk, tisk.
Of course there's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's discrimination no matter which direction it's going. A scholarship you can only get if you're black? Discriminatory. Acceptable, though, as long as there is an equal scholarship you can only get if you're not black. That's what equal opportunity means; for every opportunity available to one subset of the population, an identical opportunity is afforded to the rest of the population.
Can I help it if other white males might not afford someone the opportunity to work for them because of the color of their skin? No. I can not. What I can do is not be like that myself, and not actively support others who are like that. In fact, before I left my last job, a black man, a black woman, and a white man were all interviewed for a customer service position; in my view, the black man was the most qualified and were I in the position to hire him, I would have done so in a heartbeat. Unfortun
A broken brake line will eventually leak out all your fucking fluid, leaving you with no hydraulic brakes (and based on your big talk, likely no e-brake).
Wait... so you're saying you think the cable-driven e-brake (neigh, parking brake) is affected by a line blowout? And you're going to question my knowledge of cars? Downshift to shed speed until you can safely apply the parking brake. Know your stopping distance using that method and adjust your following distance accordingly. Sure it's murder on the clutch, but I was already replacing that anyway, so no biggie.
Is your alignment fucked or a ball joint/tie rod broken?
If your steering is off by a few degrees, it's not a broken ball joint or tie rod. Further, I wasn't advocating not getting it fixed, I was pointing out that, even new parts and an alignment can't fix it in most cases. I can count the number of times I've left an alignment shop with better alignment on one hand, the number of times I've left with perfect alignment on no hands, and run out of digits counting the number of alignments I've taken various vehicles in for, so I might be onto something here.
Let me ask you, since you're going against the cultural expectation that, well, you accept the culture for what it is... are you considering that a disadvantage? Do you think that makes you better than everyone else?
Further, do you assume that I simply accept the status quo and am, therefore, a lesser being? And what is your basis for that assumption? Let me throw another bit of adversity at you, then; if that's your assumption, you're wrong. Prejudice is the status quo and I'm unwilling to accept it in any direction. Sure, it's nice to be offered certain opportunities because I'm a white male, but don't assume that means I'm taking advantage of them, because you just look like an ass when you do. As long as there are black-only scholarships that aren't sought by every black person who could qualify or woman-only scholarships that aren't sought by every woman who could qualify, it can't be said that those programs don't do enough to encourage and enable education of these "oppressed" people. Likewise for other programs which require you to be a minority, a woman, or otherwise oppressed person in order to benefit. Suddenly, there's a wealth of advantage to screaming "oppression" and nobody who can take advantage of it really wants it to change. Oh, they'll pay lip service to the cause, but if we were all suddenly on equal footing and they lost those advantages, they wouldn't know what to do with the supposed advantages we white males have.
And again, I'm not saying that I, as a white male, haven't had opportunities that others have not; I'm merely pointing out two things: A) I've not taken advantage of said opportunities and B) many opportunities exist that I as a white male, can not take advantage of.
Could my life have been easier? Yes. So could the life of a woman or a black man who didn't seek scholarship money and social funds that are available to them. And those of us who choose not to take advantage of the system always seem to be on the same page with regard to how we feel about those who do. Admittedly, I'm not friends with every single woman and minority in the world, so I haven't asked them all, but it's not like all of my friends and associates are white males; I do have a nonzero sample size here. Very nonzero.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll never encounter a girls-only workplace; they need to learn not only how to do the work, but how to deal with the people.
See subject & that quoted from you above: I merely stated fact (get over it).
What fact, that XP is no longer supported? I never argued that. I also stated a fact: XP is still used on ~17% of computers worldwide. I'll let you (Mr. Security Guy) soak that up.
Don't you have something BETTER to show for yourself than this
No, you don't... & you never will - you don't have the skills necessary to create something that good )
I hope you choke to death on your ego. You don't know me, nor what skills I have; did it ever cross your mind that I'm not some egomaniac, like you, who needs to flaunt my "skills" to feel good about myself? Only my employer, clients, and prospective clients (none of which includes you) need to know that. Your app looks like a piece of shit our of the 90's, by the way; I'm pretty sure you have better things to do than be a dick on Slashdot (like, maybe, fix your app's UI), so why don't you do that?.
P.S.=> I find it entertaining when a "ne'er-do-well" tries to put words in my mouth I never stated, & also doesn't have a pot to piss in by comparison to wares I've done (that you never have OR will)... apk
What words did I put in your mouth? As for the number of pots I have to piss in, not that it's relevant, but I'm in the process of upgrading to a bigger box with more piss pots as I type this. Again, you don't know me, but keep trolling. With your propensity for lashing out with unprovoked personal attacks, it's a wonder you don't spend more time in the hospital; I'm guessing you only behave so disrespectfully online? Let me tell you, it doesn't instill confidence in the quality of your software.
I used to think you were, at least, entertaining. Then you replied to one of my comments and I suddenly lost all respect for you. Seriously, seek help dude. And there was really no need for you to make this personal, especially given that you don't know me.
Also - See subject? Good! "Drink it in, & digest it"...
I've been off of XP for years, but nearly 1/5 of computers still use it. I don't see how you can say it doesn't matter that nearly 1/5 of computers in the world will go unpatched.
This article makes it SOUND as if it's "just happened & wasn't patched"
And the summary (which is what most of us read anyway) does not. The first two words of the article article (actually some guy's blog post) are "Patching time." That's followed by a quote from the MSSB about the exploit, then "Details are withheld for now, so it's a race: patch your systems before the attackers can reverse engineer the Windows patch." The rest of the post consists of links to the MSSB and CVE for the exploit; the post was later updated with exploit details. I'm not quite sure how directly mentioning patching your systems, and saying it's a race between you (getting your systems patched) and hackers (reverse engineering the patch) implies that a patch doesn't exist; in fact it straight-up says a patch does exist.
You know, I never understood why people seemed so annoyed by your posts. I've always found you somewhat entertaining. But, then, this is the first time you've replied to one of my posts. Now I get it. Don't you have a HOSTS file to update or something?
Again, we weren't discussing racism, we were discussing sexism, thus why I didn't take much time to express my position. Yes, it all boils down to control and power, that was bad wording on my part, but it does not invalidate my stance on sexism. Can we get back on topic?
Somehow, Heartbleed and Shellshock mattered, even though they were patched the very same day they were disclosed, but this doesn't matter for the same reason?
As for your claim of purest bullshit, I'm pretty sure the summary clarified that there was a patch already available by stating:
An update (KB3042553) is already available
with the caveat of only being available for:
all supported editions of Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows 8, Windows Server 2012, Windows 8.1, and Windows Server 2012 R2
Looks like the ~17% of users still on XP are boned this time. I see why you say the *NIX "trolls" don't have a valid point here, though, I mean only nearly 1/5 of all computers, globally, will remain unpatched.
So then help me understand. First you outline the history and then say it doesn't matter because it's "40 years ago"?
I can't help you understand why I said something I didn't say, sorry.
That's simply not true. Structural inequities don't just disappear because the people who put them in place died off.
What I claimed and what you're claiming is not true are two different things. Of course they don't die off once the people who put them in place (that would be the first people to carry out the inequities) are removed from power; they die off, as I said, after the last people to carry out the inequities are removed from power.
Do you believe the structural inequities caused by 200 years of slaver disappeared 40 years after the Emancipation Proclamation?
No, many of the men and women who were slaves, who were not allowed an education, were still in their 20's (and thus too old to be allowed a primary education at that point) when the proclamation was signed into law. Many of them lived well into their 80's, so it was at least 60 years before that was fully recovered.
Because Jim Crow lasted over 80 more years
You mean segregation, which was made illegal by the passing of the so-called Jim Crow Law? Yes, Jim Crow was about segregation, which was about racism, while the Emancipation Proclamation released slaves from slavery, which was about control and power, two very different battles the black population had to fight in this country. You're not making yourself look all that bright by combining them.
and 130 years later we still have lynchings in the form of police murdering unarmed black men
Or so the media coverage would have you believe. The fact is that police shoot people they shouldn't shoot all the damn time; it only gets multi-week national coverage when it's a white cop shooting a black man. That's not to say racism isn't still an issue, it mote certainly still is; and yes, there even still exist racist cops, so yes, somewhat of a majority of police shootings involve black victims.
I never denied any of this, but you go right on ahead and make up arguments for me, so you can tear those down instead of actually addressing what I'm saying. It's tragic, yes, but, other than not perpetuating it myself, what do you propose I do about it? Be realistic and understand that I'm not a man of unlimited means, despite being a white male.
Yes, there's a fair bit of slack to pick up with regard to racism today, and it's something that both sides will need to work together on; but, we're not talking about the black population, here; we're talking about women, so please don't try to confuse the issue.
This is a good metaphor. The problem is the numbers I posted a few comments back prove that the thumb still hasn't been removed from the side of the scale that has favored men all this time.
No, the numbers you posted a few comments back show the steady improvement I stated we could expect as the purveyors of this particular issue began to fall out of power, which has been steadily happening for the past decade or so and is continuing to happen as time goes on. Like I said, I'll eat those words in a decade if I'm proven wrong at that time. I don't think I'll need to skip any dinners to make room, though. Thank you for finally actually addressing my words and the actual meaning behind them, for once, though. Finally.
Using your scale metaphor, think about a scale that is way out of balance. One side is heavier than the other. How do you bring the scale into balance except adding weight to the side that is light or removing weight from the side that is heavy?
Well, that weight has been steadily being removed from the other side for some time, now. That's one of your "other than" options, is it not? It's also t
So it's right to favor a woman, who may or may not have faced the same adversity as the "average" woman, over a man who may or may not have faced the same adversity as the "average" man? With no regard for the reality of what each of them faced as individuals? You're just opening yourself up to being exploited if that's how you view it. Women are very much our equals in today's society; it really can't be helped that some people holding tenured positions they took on decades ago haven't caught up, but that's a problem that will solve itself as those people retire and/or die off. Saying that women need special treatment because they're not truly our equals makes you a part of the problem. It also leads to a future imbalance in the opposite direction, which future generations will have an even harder time cleaning up, as it will be backed by all of today's history.
You're right, though. You can't discern one's background from a resume, that's why you call *both* candidates in for interviews, and not just the one you assume saw more adversity. If your interview process doesn't, at least to some degree, cover background, that's something you need to fix within your organization. Who knows, maybe you're right and the woman did face more challenges, but having to overcome them has made her a bad fit, culturally, within your organization. The same could be true of the man, but your way of thinking means you'll never know and would end up hiring the woman regardless, possibly opening up the men in your workplace to frivolous harassment claims, or worse.
That's why getting to know a candidates actual background, and not just what you assume, is important. Most women who are qualified for a position are as employable as men who are equally qualified for that position, but the handful of femnazis out there who will move in and claim harassment when a man so much as says hello to her really do ruin it for everyone. Assuming that the woman will automatically be a better fit is not only as sexist as not considering her in the first place, it's also at least as dangerous, if not moreso.
When downshifting to shed speed *quickly* and without jarring the engine (you can't rev-match when you're already revving high), yes. In essentially emergency conditions, not in normal driving. To be clear, I've never replaced a clutch in a vehicle I hadn't *just* purchased, and then only as a precaution; clearly I know how to not burn up my clutch, even in the face of some very hard driving. And yes, I rebuilt a tranny at 9, but keep with the personal attacks.
You do realize that DOT3 and DOT4 fluids are hygroscopic and will rust out the lines from the inside if not replaced every few years, right? The car I was driving was one my friend was buying to restore and the lines had rotted out due to the same fluid being left to sit in the thing while it was parked for 5 years. The first time he pushed down the break pedal, two of them popped. Aside from some body work, the lines, and the clutch (being of questionable status), the car was in decent and drivable condition, we got it back to his place without incident, and the restoration was a fair success. He went with DOT5 fluid in the brakes and clutch (after converting the clutch from a cabled system) to avoid any such issues (or maintenance requirements) in the future.
You've made some assumptions here, which may have incorrectly colored your opinion. That, or, perhaps your limited experience. Either way, I don't really need to prove anything to you, I know what my experience has been and that will always outweigh whatever you or anyone else thinks my experience may have been.
That is certainly how I intended it to be taken. I'm all too familiar with vengeful troll moderation, so I feel you on that.
So history didn't exist before you were born? You should not let your lack of first-hand experience in something prevent you from having some understanding.
What the fuck do you think I meant when I said this?
Of course. Because 40 years ago, when the generation of men and women who would be in those positions today were graduating form high school, more of the men continued their education in order to qualify themselves for those positions. Mind you I'm not blaming women; it was socially unacceptable, at the time, for a woman to be educated. That was wrong and it has been corrected, but that doesn't retroactively educate women who did miss out on that opportunity, nor does it qualify those same women for those positions. It's unfortunate, but it's also not a situation faced by women of more recent generations. That is to say, yes, that particular problem has been fixed; we simply aren't far enough ahead to see the results of that yet.
That's a statement that the history you allude to, which you claim I'm denying, is a reality. It's also a show of understanding that this history is the cause of today's problem. You just go right ahead and keep seeing my "white male privilege" instead of my words and actions, though, since that suits your position so much better than reality.
That era, when women didn't have the same educational opportunities as men, existed in my lifetime. It existed alongside lynchings, blacks being denied service at lunch counters and being systematically denied the right to vote.
Yes, and it was a horrible time in history and I'm glad it's behind us now.
How long do you think it takes for a structural inequality to drain out of a society?
However long it takes the last generation to have caused the issue to fall out of power. Generally, this means the majority of them retiring and/or dying off.
And do you really blame people for trying to move that process forward?
Only those, like yourself, who would see that done by way of introducing yet more structural inequality. That's the problem we're trying to solve; introducing more of it does not do that. Sadly, that means we have to be the best, most equality-driven people we can be and wait it out while the past dies off, lest we leave a similar (but opposite) mess for future generations to deal with; only, the mess we'd leave for future generations would have the current history backing it up, making it even more difficult for them to deal with sanely.
To put it another way, if you have an imbalanced scale that you're watching (even if slowly) return to balance after the excess weight was removed from one side, adding weight to the other side will not make it return to balance faster; it will only result in the imbalance swinging to the other side.
That may be true for most people, but as someone who uses *all* of the tools, I can tell you I'm certainly using the ones that work best. Your Cisco example is weak simply for the fact that part of "working" is being supported comfortably, which is clearly not the case for you when it comes to Cisco gear, so Cisco simply doesn't work for you. That's fair, as well.
I totally get the issues with zealotry amongst Apple users. I have a friend who thinks Apple can do no wrong; he's one of the brightest people I know and it pains me to see him so blindly following when I've come to know him as a leader. That doesn't stop me from using the tools, though, i just know I have to be careful in how and when I go about suggesting them.
Plus so-called male privilege, don't forget. Middle class is money, as well.
I was raised in a lower middle class household, I know I had an easier childhood than many, if not most. The day I moved out, though, I was on my own and wishing I'd faced more adversity growing up, as it would have made the shit I dealt with in my early adulthood much easier for me. Adversity isn't always a bad thing, you see.
Good to meet someone who's on the same page, then. Sadly, it was hard to pick out the sarcasm, I've actually seen people respond affirmatively to those types of arguments, as though the TSA were actually the right response.
Also I know you can buy brake lines in Ohio.
Yes, you can also buy the tools to bend the short lengths of straight lines you can get at the parts store into the correct shape, and the connectors to attach them together. Of course, when you're talking about 10 feet of overall line length, that's five 24" segments, bent less accurately than a factory part and perhaps slightly too long, leading to incorrect fitment making them more likely to snag on something while driving (road debris happens, y'know). That's not to mention that a compression fitting in the middle of a line is prone to failure as the weight of the fitting causes the lines to sag and stress the compression joint. Then we're adding 8 additional compression joints to the line (2 per fitting), all of those being of the low-reliability type I just described. Personally, having had one of those compression fit repair lines fail the same day it was installed (the end of the "repair" line snapped when I hit a bump) I'd rather know I have bad brakes than think I have good brakes. Potentially being the person in front of me when the "repaired" line fails, you should want the same. The correct lines were a dealer-only special order, they were expensive and it took a week to get them, but at least I knew it was safe to drive normally after they were installed. But if you want to trust side-of-the-road repairs with incorrect "patch-em-up" parts, installed with most likely the wrong tools, and compression fittings installed in an environment where bits of grit are likely to get stuck in the connector and prevent a proper seal, well you go right ahead and do that, just don't drive on the same roads as me or my family while doing so.
I've been repairing vehicles for as long as I've been able to walk. I started with simple things like changing turn signal bulbs when I was 2 and rebuilt my first transmission when I was 9. If you want to go toe to toe, I'm game.
If you know how to downshift it is no harder on the clutch then any other shift.
Doing it smoothly and as a form of braking actually is. Doing so in the course of normal driving? You're absolutely correct.
For all the trolls that keep screaming about how insecure Linux is when a vulnerability is discovered in something like Bash (which is used by the BSDs, including OSX, and can also run on Windows), OpenSSL (a library used by many applications which run on many platforms, but not used by Linux itself), or any other library or application capable of running on the platform, please allow me to take thos opportunity to point out that this is a critical vulnerability in Windows itself and not just some 3rd-party application or library. Still feel superior? Also consider that Windows libraries and applications are rife with exploits, as well.
Now that the trolls are dealt with, let me point out that every platform has flaws. Every single one. They were all written by humans and humans are inherently flawed. That's just a fact of life. Further, an operating system is a god damn tool, not an ideology. Who cares if someone uses Craftsman, Snap-On, or generic stuff from Harbor Freight? Nobody. So why all the fighting between over OSes? It's a tool, you pick the one that works best for you for a particular task, and you use it. Who gives a flying rat's ass what tool someone else decides to use for whatever task(s) they need to carry out?
Personally, I use whatever OS suits a given task. For me, it's (currently, as this has been known to change as each platform improves) OS X for the desktop, Linux for my servers (though I've been eying a jump to one of the BSDs lately), and Windows pretty much for testing and the handful of occasional-use apps that don't run anywhere else. Windows isn't a tool I have much of a use for these days, but it's still just a tool and, while I feel there are better options, I recognize that those aren't options for everyone, so, let them use Windows if they so choose (or require).
I'm really not sure what's so difficult about that.
Yes, the gun in my face was real both times. So was the fact that the first time it was a group of three thugs, and the second time was a guy who was clearly tweaked out on some shit. Race doesn't matter here but yes, since I know it will be asked, they were all black. I've also been falsely arrested (okay, I'll claim the benefit here, as I wasn't shot in the back) and jerked around by the legal system, can't get a loan to save my life despite having plenty of income and nothing negative on my credit report and, really, aside from the whole "not getting shot by the cops that one time" thing, seem to be quite cut off from the benefits everyone says I should have as a white male.
Don't assume that just because I'm a white male I haven't seem any hardship and just have everything handed to me.
As for your second link, yeah my maid is so late she might never get here. Maybe because I don't have one. The bottom of my foot does itch, though. If I ever bought an island, I'd, of course, remember to fill it with people. I'd start with you, then follow with the rest of the racists and sexists.
Of course, Paul, you come from money, so all of that really probably does apply to you. I'm so glad you've had such an easy life, just please don't assume everyone else has, too.
I hope you nearly choked to death on that sarcasm because I nearly choked to death laughing at it. And if that wasn't sarcasm, let me remind you that those of us with our shoulders not held firmly against our buttocks by our heads would much prefer constant freedom with occasional spikes of terror to today's current system of constant low levels of terror with the occasional glimpse of freedom.
Eh? It's a fact that, in a time before I was even born, the world was a different place. Guess who had no hand in that? Me. I'm doing what I can to make it a better place now, for everyone; admittedly, that's not much, but it seems you'd rather I either singlehandedly fix the problem by going back in time and making it so it never happened in the first place, ot bow out and do nothing. That's just retarded. Did you skip the rest of the paragraph you quoted that from? Clearly, I was lacking irony when I wrote that because I was stating a fact; and the words that out-of-context bit was sandwiched between make it quite clear that I think that was wrong.
If the only way you can argue this very serious topic is by playing children's games with context and twisting my words to imply shit I never said, I'm out. Go get hit by a bus or something, the equality movement will do much better without you. I say this not as an adversary, but as someone on the same side of the equality issue as you.
Do you want to board a plane with a bomb on it?
No, but I should be free to if I do. If not, then put up with it. It's an extra what, two minutes? Suck it up for freedom.
If the TSA agents were the ones "sucking it up", well, it'd take a bit longer than two minutes but I might be okay with it. That said, I sincerely hope your entire post was meant to be sarcastic, as the TSA is the antithesis of freedom (as well as security). True, they're the reason there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11-01; they're what the terrorists want and we gate it to them so easily, there's been no need for further attacks since then.
half that list are still politically correct and encouraged targets for discrimination
Depending on your political leaning, the entire list is. That's not the point, nor do I think it's right. Rather than sit here and list every little possible difference upon which someone could possible be discriminated against, I chose to round out the list with the final item in the list: "or, well, really, anything other than a direct comparison of the shit two people have been through". I did this specifically so I could not be called out for insinuating that it was okay to discriminate based on traits not specifically mentioned in my list, as a necessity because there are simply too many to list in a reasonable-length post, so I just threw out the "big" ones and a blanket to cover everything else.
Hope that clears it up.
we need to change the game, not the players
Except that the complaint, here, is that women and minorities aren't being allowed to play. Changing the players is precisely what people are calling for and your failure to see that is precisely why your ideas fail.
I have a name whose female variants are far more common, and so I add Mr. to my resume to significantly improve the response rate.
Just like that, actually.
I just think we have a problem, a big one...
That you just admitted to being a part of.
...and my empathy for my fellow sentient beings is sufficient that I think that giving a few decades of unearned advantage to those who are being systematically discriminated against is a small price to pay to help equalize the playing field going forward.
But it isn't sufficient enough to prevent you from gaming the system and taking advantage of that discrimination?
Women have been discriminated against for centuries, arguably millenia...
And you seem happy to take advantage of that fact.
...and there are no easy answers.
You're right, there aren't, but refusing to participate in that discrimination is a damn good start. Try it?
Are you really going to argue that suffering a few decades of "reverse" discrimination is too high a price to pay to at least take a stab at giving the next generation a fair shot?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's still discrimination, any way you slice it. It's also quite hilarious that you would, in the same paragraph in which you admit to being part of the problem, suggest that I pay penance for your sins.
Basically, what your argument boils down to is "But, but.... but... Determining who's actually doing the wrong thing here and just punishing them is tooooooooooooooooo haaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd. Why can't we just hold everybody back?" And the simple answer for that is that it's simply not right to punish a group for the actions of of the individual. Especially when it is the guilty individual calling for others to share in their own punishment.
Why would you? Why would any privileged class ever assume that anyone has it harder than them? That's part of the privilege: You don't have to think about it.
Way to ignore context. Not sure whether to call you a dumbass or an asshole. I never said nobody has it harder than I do, I said I don't assume that based on skin color or gender. I also don't assume anyone had it easier than me based on those factors, either; in fact, I said as much right in the text you quoted.
Thanks for the comparison to Mitt Romney, though. Even though I think the man's an ass, I could only ever dream of being as successful and well known as him. He's also not wrong that anyone can achieve what he has by working for it; some will have to work harder, in fact most will. Even most white males, mind you, he did have more advantages than most. The corollary to that, and the more important point, is that nobody can achieve his position without working for it. I don't have it in me to put forth the effort required to achieve that position in life and, honestly I'm satisfied where I am, so I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm sure I'd enjoy that position, as well, but it's not where I am and I don't see much benefit to it, when compared with the extra work involved in getting there. I'm not going to complain and say it's owed to me for some off-the-wall reason, though; I'm not there because I didn't put forth the effort to get there. Period.
It's mostly men who are giving out the PhDs
Apparently, as you say:
despite the fact that women are getting more PhDs than men.
they're giving them to women.
It's mostly men who are in tenure track positions
Of course. Because 40 years ago, when the generation of men and women who would be in those positions today were graduating form high school, more of the men continued their education in order to qualify themselves for those positions. Mind you I'm not blaming women; it was socially unacceptable, at the time, for a woman to be educated. That was wrong and it has been corrected, but that doesn't retroactively educate women who did miss out on that opportunity, nor does it qualify those same women for those positions. It's unfortunate, but it's also not a situation faced by women of more recent generations. That is to say, yes, that particular problem has been fixed; we simply aren't far enough ahead to see the results of that yet.
and it's mostly men who comprise academic administrations
See above.
I'll eat those words 10 years from now if I'm proven wrong.
So maybe, there is no "reverse discrimination" (as if such a thing could exist)
And you quote it as though it wasn't something you introduced to the conversation. You must think the people who read your comments are idiots who wouldn't catch on to that tactic. Tisk, tisk.
Of course there's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's discrimination no matter which direction it's going. A scholarship you can only get if you're black? Discriminatory. Acceptable, though, as long as there is an equal scholarship you can only get if you're not black. That's what equal opportunity means; for every opportunity available to one subset of the population, an identical opportunity is afforded to the rest of the population.
Can I help it if other white males might not afford someone the opportunity to work for them because of the color of their skin? No. I can not. What I can do is not be like that myself, and not actively support others who are like that. In fact, before I left my last job, a black man, a black woman, and a white man were all interviewed for a customer service position; in my view, the black man was the most qualified and were I in the position to hire him, I would have done so in a heartbeat. Unfortun
A broken brake line will eventually leak out all your fucking fluid, leaving you with no hydraulic brakes (and based on your big talk, likely no e-brake).
Wait... so you're saying you think the cable-driven e-brake (neigh, parking brake) is affected by a line blowout? And you're going to question my knowledge of cars? Downshift to shed speed until you can safely apply the parking brake. Know your stopping distance using that method and adjust your following distance accordingly. Sure it's murder on the clutch, but I was already replacing that anyway, so no biggie.
Is your alignment fucked or a ball joint/tie rod broken?
If your steering is off by a few degrees, it's not a broken ball joint or tie rod. Further, I wasn't advocating not getting it fixed, I was pointing out that, even new parts and an alignment can't fix it in most cases. I can count the number of times I've left an alignment shop with better alignment on one hand, the number of times I've left with perfect alignment on no hands, and run out of digits counting the number of alignments I've taken various vehicles in for, so I might be onto something here.
You're right that the analogy is stupid, though.
Let me ask you, since you're going against the cultural expectation that, well, you accept the culture for what it is... are you considering that a disadvantage? Do you think that makes you better than everyone else?
Further, do you assume that I simply accept the status quo and am, therefore, a lesser being? And what is your basis for that assumption? Let me throw another bit of adversity at you, then; if that's your assumption, you're wrong. Prejudice is the status quo and I'm unwilling to accept it in any direction. Sure, it's nice to be offered certain opportunities because I'm a white male, but don't assume that means I'm taking advantage of them, because you just look like an ass when you do. As long as there are black-only scholarships that aren't sought by every black person who could qualify or woman-only scholarships that aren't sought by every woman who could qualify, it can't be said that those programs don't do enough to encourage and enable education of these "oppressed" people. Likewise for other programs which require you to be a minority, a woman, or otherwise oppressed person in order to benefit. Suddenly, there's a wealth of advantage to screaming "oppression" and nobody who can take advantage of it really wants it to change. Oh, they'll pay lip service to the cause, but if we were all suddenly on equal footing and they lost those advantages, they wouldn't know what to do with the supposed advantages we white males have.
And again, I'm not saying that I, as a white male, haven't had opportunities that others have not; I'm merely pointing out two things: A) I've not taken advantage of said opportunities and B) many opportunities exist that I as a white male, can not take advantage of.
Could my life have been easier? Yes. So could the life of a woman or a black man who didn't seek scholarship money and social funds that are available to them. And those of us who choose not to take advantage of the system always seem to be on the same page with regard to how we feel about those who do. Admittedly, I'm not friends with every single woman and minority in the world, so I haven't asked them all, but it's not like all of my friends and associates are white males; I do have a nonzero sample size here. Very nonzero.