So to answer your final question: no, I am not embarrassed that my family cannot blend in. Sorry, I am proud that my family WILL NOT blend in. We are solidly middle class, if not upper middle. I am well educated, attending one of the most prestigious post-secondary institutions in the world, studying under some of the leading minds in my chosen fields. We are Canadian, but we are also Chinese. We have our cultural differences. We have different practices. If the point is to blend in, then it takes away the significance of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is good PRECISELY BECAUSE we are all allowed to act differently and NOT to blend in and fully adopt all western practices. If we were required to blend in or risk social ostracization, then there is no point in multiculturalism. People practicing cultures different from the mainstream would be socially ostracized. I am happy that we will not blend in, and that we are different, and that we do not face popular oppression in Toronto.
Nor should you be embarrassed by "being different." There's no reason at all for you to completely blend in, or "hide" among the masses. In fact, as much as people claim, it is almost impossible to "blend in" to a point where no one will see a difference.
You're Chinese. I'm Puerto Rican. I may think that I "look like everyone else" (read: caucasian), but I am not, and people can see that just by looking at my skin tone. My girlfriend is Jewish (ancestry is Polish) and she calls me a spic. I call her a kike. She makes "latino jokes." I make Pollock and Jewish jokes. We laugh. Because as much as we pretend that we are all the same, we are not, and stereotypes exist. Stereotypes exist.
I'm getting away from my point, which is: when you set yourself apart, when you are proud of your differences, when you're proud to "NOT blend in" you also have to be ready for others to point out that you're different. You have to grow a little bit of a thicker skin if you set yourself apart from your peers or community. There is no choice.
It has nothing to do with race, but as a young man (in the early 90's) I pierced myself up. My hair was ridiculous colors. I dressed in outlandish ways. Of course, I've grown up since then, but I spent most of my teenage years and my 20's TRYING to look different.
It accomplished 2 things: one, it attracted the attention of people who were either like me (dressing the same, etc) or wanted to be like me. Great. The second thing it accomplished was that I was different, very different at the time; this was the early 90's... body modification and "being a freak" hadn't become as popular as it is now and getting your tongue pierced wasn't as common or as "cool" as getting your ear pierced in the 80's. I received the attention that I wanted and TONS of attention that I didn't want in terms of derogatory comments, ladies clutching their handbags, people outright asking what was wrong with me for "messing up my body" and asking why I didn't want to "be like everyone else." I was called freak.
Point being: although CHOOSING to be different is not the same as being born a minor ethnicity in a majority, you have chosen to hold on to what you think is your cultural identity. It's your choice. If, occasionally, someone hurls some Chingrish at you for a laugh, you need to learn to deal with it. Just as I CHOSE not to be like my peers, and received negative attitudes toward it, it was my choice, I dealt with it, and I grew a thicker skin because of it. I also think I'm a better person and more tolerant of others because of it.
Don't even get me started on the thinly veiled racism I receive when someone thinks I'm caucasian and they find out that I am Puerto Rican. Or the typically horrible "chicano accent" people try to affect at times, or the mistake of thinking "puerto ricans and mexicans are 'the same thing'"
It happens all the time. I pick my battles and most of the time, they aren't worth fighting.
Maybe you can get disability for depression if you only show pictures of yourself on facebook depicting deep frowns and somber scenes! That's a diagnosis if I ever saw one!
If that's the case, all the Emo kids have a very bright future!
Now that smokers are the minority, I don't think so.
So, your argument is that once a group is a minority, it's suddenly ok to discriminate against them? It's ok to breach a contract because the individual is part of a minority in the population?
I might be able to get on board with your argument if you hadn't made that incredibly ignorant statement.
I think the problem is actually that the computer field didn't come up with a proper term themselves. I remember way back-in-the-day some computer enthusiasts calling it "the CPU" which is also highly misleading. Nowadays, computer people will call it, "the tower", "the machine", "the box", or something like that. But let's face it--these are actually not very good terms. We don't actually have a precise and universal term that refer to it.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's called a "case."
A computer case. There's your universal term, straight from the mouth of all of those tower, machine, and box manufacturers. Computer case. It even sound like what it is.
Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to?;)
Right, and then she promptly uses the music you downloaded for her to impress the new "bad boy" who she's *so* totally in love with.
Once a person is under arrest they may be frisked. It's a fairly common, necessary, and lawful practice.
Incidentally, the subject of your post is exactly the reason the police were called. The teachers can't physically hold a student or force said student out of a classroom without fear of lawsuit so the police were involved. Perhaps if people like yourself didn't run around screaming "Laaaawwwsuuuuit" constantly the situation wouldn't have escalated to that point in the first place.
Belkin's president Mark Reynoso has issued a statement apologizing and saying that 'this is an isolated incident' and that 'Belkin does not participate in, nor does it endorse, unethical practices like this.'
Phew, for a second I thought I was going to have to use some doublethink to convince myself that Belkin didn't do exactly what he just claimed they never do!!!
Mr. Reynoso's apology means nothing. He's only sorry because they were caught; as with most people.
It doesn't matter if they apologize because a business that engages in that sort of unethical behavior will not hesitate to do it again (unless it effects their pocketbooks, in that case they'll just be more careful to not be caught). Once a cheater always a cheater.
I was actually commenting on the elitist tone of your post, not your security practices.
I take steps to avoid affection, too. These steps include practices such as yours. Prevention is the best defense, right? However, I'm not about to claim that any of the 3 OSes I run are completely impenetrable and invulnerable whether the system is Windows, OS X, or a flavor of Linux. To make such a claim would be arrogant, not sensible.
But, hey, we are talking about Mac users; arrogance is part of Apple's marketing strategy.
Safety and security is everyone's problem, not everyone else's.
I also think that slashdotters tend to forget that they are atypical computer users. You may have your comp locked down, but for every one of you there are 100 other people who wouldn't even have a clue what you're talking about, let alone "dump Windows" and fork out thousands of dollars for OS X. And for every one of you there are 100 people who are terrified of Linux. Just because the typical user isn't as "geek" as you doesn't mean they're fools; it just means you're a geek. And I use the word in the nicest possible way. It's a compliment, actually.
Incidentally, I run AV on my Windows box (not Linux or OS X) because Windows is a target; I've never had an infection, yet I still run an AV program. Strange, huh?
In regards to spreading Windows viruses yeah I feel bad for Windows users but I won't spend my own money and processor cycles on worrying about their systems. If they want to protect their systems then they should take steps to protect themselves. They could also dump Windows and get an operating system that isn't so ridden with viruses and malware. That's their own choice and problem, not mine.
My thoughts exactly. It should be up to everyone else to protect themselves so that I'm protected by virtue of their diligence.
I mean, I don't wear condoms because everyone else has been told to protect themselves with birth control and prophylactics. I have nothing to worry about, right?
Not to mention that such laws only effect law abiding citizens. The copper thieves don't care if they do not have invoices for all the copper in their possession... the plan is to not be in a position to have to show those invoices to someone in the first place.
No, laws like the one you mentioned only impede and effect those who wouldn't have broken the law in the first place. I'm sure I'll be modded flamebait or off-topic, but the situation is similar to draconian gun control laws.
I'm not sure about it being obvious. What they're talking about is a preliminary study upon which a loose hypothesis is based.
What people don't seem to be able to grasp is that "junk food" is called that because it's junk. Period. Candy really doesn't have any redeeming features, either. Common sense dictates that if you're eating candy and junk food in the levels that the mice were forced to ingest (much more than three meals every day, I'm sure) something adverse will eventually happen to your body.
Of course, they could've avoided spending money on this research if they'd all just listened to their mothers in the first place.
That's Gore, not Horror.
Some of the best gaming (and movie) moments that had me jumping out of my chair had nothing to do with blood and guts. It's all about well timed silence along with sound effects with a good dash of suspense. I can't remember feeling that way in a game, lately. Maybe System Shock 2. Half Life (1 and even 2 had its moments).
Sure, I haven't heard of a good horror game being released in quite a while, but I don't think anyone seems to be trying.
Why bother upgrading for 1.5 years, give or take, when you can just sit on that money for the same 1.5 years and get a product that is to Vista what Win2K was to ME?
Or at least that's what I assume they're thinking.
If you work in any sort of "corporate" environment asking usually won't work. I've watched companies destroy and throw away merchandise/equipment rather than give it to employees.
So, sure, asking is the moral and ethical way to do it, but you may just be calling attention to the fact that they haven't thrown any of the old junk that's collecting dust.
I'm not advocating theft, by the way, just pointing out that many companies would rather trash something than give it to an employee. That being said, my boss just gave me an iMac that they were going to get rid of!
Apple has consistently and predictably followed the same practices for which people condemn Microsoft. The caveat is that Apple has always cultivated a "cult" attitude, as well. I know I'll probably be modded flamebait for this, but the fact is that it's "ok" for Apple to practice competition stifling policies if they continue to also perpetuate the "Cult of Mac" attitude.
Apple is no more nor is it any less evil than Microsoft or any of their ilk. Is it any surprise that they're exercising strict control over the iPhone? No. No. No, not at all!! It's the same behavior Apple has exhibited with everything it produces!
"Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better."
Sure. Why would they want to possibly put themselves in the position of admitting that someone "did iTunes" better than they do? Their business practices and marketing are almost the same thing; they need to promote "Cult of [Apple]" and to effectively justify their approach they need to be able to say, "No. We did that application/utility better. See what our strict adherence to our policies brought us? A better product." If they can't say that then the millions (billions?) they've spent on their marketing for the last 30 years is worthless.
Extradition to the countries willing to enforce the law. If the nation refuses extradition, you send in kidnappers to simply grab or kill them. This is exactly what we do with drug dealers and arms dealers.
Drug dealers and arms dealers aren't exactly classified in the same league with spammers. Yes, the spammers use shady means and are causing harm to the backbone, but you can hardly equate a drug dealer with a spammer.
why not create a law prohiting credit card companies to make payments on products / companies which have used spam to addvertise their products or services.
How exactly would that work? We're talking about something that crosses international borders; who enforces the law? How would the CC companies know when spam generated the income? When does it cross the line and, say, make income from junk snail-mail illegal to make or receive payment?
This is a kdawson post. kdawson is the epitome of stupidity and sensationalism. If a story sounds like it is too ridiculous or belongs in Idle (but is not), it's most likely a kdawson post and you should just disregard it.
Or perhaps you mean "completely and unabashedly anti-Microsoft simply for the fact that the article is about Microsoft."
Slashdot Mirror
You have never eaten MSG, obviously.
There, fixed that for ya.
So to answer your final question: no, I am not embarrassed that my family cannot blend in. Sorry, I am proud that my family WILL NOT blend in. We are solidly middle class, if not upper middle. I am well educated, attending one of the most prestigious post-secondary institutions in the world, studying under some of the leading minds in my chosen fields. We are Canadian, but we are also Chinese. We have our cultural differences. We have different practices. If the point is to blend in, then it takes away the significance of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is good PRECISELY BECAUSE we are all allowed to act differently and NOT to blend in and fully adopt all western practices. If we were required to blend in or risk social ostracization, then there is no point in multiculturalism. People practicing cultures different from the mainstream would be socially ostracized. I am happy that we will not blend in, and that we are different, and that we do not face popular oppression in Toronto.
Nor should you be embarrassed by "being different." There's no reason at all for you to completely blend in, or "hide" among the masses. In fact, as much as people claim, it is almost impossible to "blend in" to a point where no one will see a difference.
You're Chinese. I'm Puerto Rican. I may think that I "look like everyone else" (read: caucasian), but I am not, and people can see that just by looking at my skin tone. My girlfriend is Jewish (ancestry is Polish) and she calls me a spic. I call her a kike. She makes "latino jokes." I make Pollock and Jewish jokes. We laugh. Because as much as we pretend that we are all the same, we are not, and stereotypes exist. Stereotypes exist.
I'm getting away from my point, which is: when you set yourself apart, when you are proud of your differences, when you're proud to "NOT blend in" you also have to be ready for others to point out that you're different. You have to grow a little bit of a thicker skin if you set yourself apart from your peers or community. There is no choice.
It has nothing to do with race, but as a young man (in the early 90's) I pierced myself up. My hair was ridiculous colors. I dressed in outlandish ways. Of course, I've grown up since then, but I spent most of my teenage years and my 20's TRYING to look different.
It accomplished 2 things: one, it attracted the attention of people who were either like me (dressing the same, etc) or wanted to be like me. Great. The second thing it accomplished was that I was different, very different at the time; this was the early 90's... body modification and "being a freak" hadn't become as popular as it is now and getting your tongue pierced wasn't as common or as "cool" as getting your ear pierced in the 80's. I received the attention that I wanted and TONS of attention that I didn't want in terms of derogatory comments, ladies clutching their handbags, people outright asking what was wrong with me for "messing up my body" and asking why I didn't want to "be like everyone else." I was called freak.
Point being: although CHOOSING to be different is not the same as being born a minor ethnicity in a majority, you have chosen to hold on to what you think is your cultural identity. It's your choice. If, occasionally, someone hurls some Chingrish at you for a laugh, you need to learn to deal with it. Just as I CHOSE not to be like my peers, and received negative attitudes toward it, it was my choice, I dealt with it, and I grew a thicker skin because of it. I also think I'm a better person and more tolerant of others because of it.
Don't even get me started on the thinly veiled racism I receive when someone thinks I'm caucasian and they find out that I am Puerto Rican. Or the typically horrible "chicano accent" people try to affect at times, or the mistake of thinking "puerto ricans and mexicans are 'the same thing'"
It happens all the time. I pick my battles and most of the time, they aren't worth fighting.
I wonder how many people on /. w
Maybe you can get disability for depression if you only show pictures of yourself on facebook depicting deep frowns and somber scenes! That's a diagnosis if I ever saw one!
If that's the case, all the Emo kids have a very bright future!
Now that smokers are the minority, I don't think so.
So, your argument is that once a group is a minority, it's suddenly ok to discriminate against them? It's ok to breach a contract because the individual is part of a minority in the population? I might be able to get on board with your argument if you hadn't made that incredibly ignorant statement.
I think the problem is actually that the computer field didn't come up with a proper term themselves. I remember way back-in-the-day some computer enthusiasts calling it "the CPU" which is also highly misleading. Nowadays, computer people will call it, "the tower", "the machine", "the box", or something like that. But let's face it--these are actually not very good terms. We don't actually have a precise and universal term that refer to it.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's called a "case."
A computer case. There's your universal term, straight from the mouth of all of those tower, machine, and box manufacturers. Computer case. It even sound like what it is.
Amazing.
ROFL!
Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to? ;)
Right, and then she promptly uses the music you downloaded for her to impress the new "bad boy" who she's *so* totally in love with.
Oh, they had a valid reason. It's called "disorderly conduct."
I'm a little curious as to where race comes into this discussion. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Regardless, once you're arrested, you're arrested and although you may think it's an excuse, it's legal and in this case, justified.
Once a person is under arrest they may be frisked. It's a fairly common, necessary, and lawful practice.
Incidentally, the subject of your post is exactly the reason the police were called. The teachers can't physically hold a student or force said student out of a classroom without fear of lawsuit so the police were involved. Perhaps if people like yourself didn't run around screaming "Laaaawwwsuuuuit" constantly the situation wouldn't have escalated to that point in the first place.
"See Right, Religious. Also see Neo-Conservative."
There, I fixed that for you since you don't seem to realize that Republican and Neo-Conservative are not synonymous.
Belkin's president Mark Reynoso has issued a statement apologizing and saying that 'this is an isolated incident' and that 'Belkin does not participate in, nor does it endorse, unethical practices like this.'
Phew, for a second I thought I was going to have to use some doublethink to convince myself that Belkin didn't do exactly what he just claimed they never do!!!
Mr. Reynoso's apology means nothing. He's only sorry because they were caught; as with most people.
It doesn't matter if they apologize because a business that engages in that sort of unethical behavior will not hesitate to do it again (unless it effects their pocketbooks, in that case they'll just be more careful to not be caught). Once a cheater always a cheater.
2003 called. They want their idea back.
I was actually commenting on the elitist tone of your post, not your security practices.
I take steps to avoid affection, too. These steps include practices such as yours. Prevention is the best defense, right? However, I'm not about to claim that any of the 3 OSes I run are completely impenetrable and invulnerable whether the system is Windows, OS X, or a flavor of Linux. To make such a claim would be arrogant, not sensible.
But, hey, we are talking about Mac users; arrogance is part of Apple's marketing strategy.
Safety and security is everyone's problem, not everyone else's.
I also think that slashdotters tend to forget that they are atypical computer users. You may have your comp locked down, but for every one of you there are 100 other people who wouldn't even have a clue what you're talking about, let alone "dump Windows" and fork out thousands of dollars for OS X. And for every one of you there are 100 people who are terrified of Linux.
Just because the typical user isn't as "geek" as you doesn't mean they're fools; it just means you're a geek. And I use the word in the nicest possible way. It's a compliment, actually.
Incidentally, I run AV on my Windows box (not Linux or OS X) because Windows is a target; I've never had an infection, yet I still run an AV program. Strange, huh?
In regards to spreading Windows viruses yeah I feel bad for Windows users but I won't spend my own money and processor cycles on worrying about their systems. If they want to protect their systems then they should take steps to protect themselves. They could also dump Windows and get an operating system that isn't so ridden with viruses and malware. That's their own choice and problem, not mine.
My thoughts exactly. It should be up to everyone else to protect themselves so that I'm protected by virtue of their diligence.
I mean, I don't wear condoms because everyone else has been told to protect themselves with birth control and prophylactics. I have nothing to worry about, right?
Not to mention that such laws only effect law abiding citizens. The copper thieves don't care if they do not have invoices for all the copper in their possession... the plan is to not be in a position to have to show those invoices to someone in the first place.
No, laws like the one you mentioned only impede and effect those who wouldn't have broken the law in the first place. I'm sure I'll be modded flamebait or off-topic, but the situation is similar to draconian gun control laws.
I'm not sure about it being obvious. What they're talking about is a preliminary study upon which a loose hypothesis is based.
What people don't seem to be able to grasp is that "junk food" is called that because it's junk. Period. Candy really doesn't have any redeeming features, either. Common sense dictates that if you're eating candy and junk food in the levels that the mice were forced to ingest (much more than three meals every day, I'm sure) something adverse will eventually happen to your body.
Of course, they could've avoided spending money on this research if they'd all just listened to their mothers in the first place.
Please tell me what browser you're using which forces you to have sex with dirty, mysterious men. I'd really like to avoid that one.
That's Gore, not Horror. Some of the best gaming (and movie) moments that had me jumping out of my chair had nothing to do with blood and guts. It's all about well timed silence along with sound effects with a good dash of suspense. I can't remember feeling that way in a game, lately. Maybe System Shock 2. Half Life (1 and even 2 had its moments). Sure, I haven't heard of a good horror game being released in quite a while, but I don't think anyone seems to be trying.
Why bother upgrading for 1.5 years, give or take, when you can just sit on that money for the same 1.5 years and get a product that is to Vista what Win2K was to ME?
Or at least that's what I assume they're thinking.
If you work in any sort of "corporate" environment asking usually won't work. I've watched companies destroy and throw away merchandise/equipment rather than give it to employees.
So, sure, asking is the moral and ethical way to do it, but you may just be calling attention to the fact that they haven't thrown any of the old junk that's collecting dust.
I'm not advocating theft, by the way, just pointing out that many companies would rather trash something than give it to an employee. That being said, my boss just gave me an iMac that they were going to get rid of!
Apple has consistently and predictably followed the same practices for which people condemn Microsoft. The caveat is that Apple has always cultivated a "cult" attitude, as well. I know I'll probably be modded flamebait for this, but the fact is that it's "ok" for Apple to practice competition stifling policies if they continue to also perpetuate the "Cult of Mac" attitude.
Apple is no more nor is it any less evil than Microsoft or any of their ilk. Is it any surprise that they're exercising strict control over the iPhone? No. No. No, not at all!! It's the same behavior Apple has exhibited with everything it produces!
"Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better."
Sure. Why would they want to possibly put themselves in the position of admitting that someone "did iTunes" better than they do? Their business practices and marketing are almost the same thing; they need to promote "Cult of [Apple]" and to effectively justify their approach they need to be able to say, "No. We did that application/utility better. See what our strict adherence to our policies brought us? A better product." If they can't say that then the millions (billions?) they've spent on their marketing for the last 30 years is worthless.
They built the cult for a reason.
Extradition to the countries willing to enforce the law. If the nation refuses extradition, you send in kidnappers to simply grab or kill them. This is exactly what we do with drug dealers and arms dealers.
Drug dealers and arms dealers aren't exactly classified in the same league with spammers. Yes, the spammers use shady means and are causing harm to the backbone, but you can hardly equate a drug dealer with a spammer.
why not create a law prohiting credit card companies to make payments on products / companies which have used spam to addvertise their products or services.
How exactly would that work? We're talking about something that crosses international borders; who enforces the law? How would the CC companies know when spam generated the income? When does it cross the line and, say, make income from junk snail-mail illegal to make or receive payment?
This is a kdawson post. kdawson is the epitome of stupidity and sensationalism. If a story sounds like it is too ridiculous or belongs in Idle (but is not), it's most likely a kdawson post and you should just disregard it.
Or perhaps you mean "completely and unabashedly anti-Microsoft simply for the fact that the article is about Microsoft."
You say potato, I say potato.