To Debian: We don't live in a black and white world. Please find another academic circular argument, and let this one go.
Right, because all IP the same right?
Honestly, what does Firefox have to worry about from anyone being able to freely modify the artwork of their piece? Someone might steal the artwork? OMG!!!! It's like, someone might steal a piece of Linux and use it in their own code!!!
OMG! The humanity! When will people learn that IP is there to PROTECT you, I mean, how could Microsoft ensure that Windows was the quality piece of software that they provide you, if it openned up its code to everyone? How could Firefox guarentee the quality of its artwork, if they don't protect it from evil hackers defacing it or using it?
Debian is pushing yet another IP issue into the light. Copyleft + Trademark = Stupid.
The article also states that Mozilla is expecting Debian to submit all modifications for review, and that if the modifications were not satisfactory, whether the code was in deep-freeze or not, that they would have to change the name.
A lot of this comes down to "what's in a name"? Personally, I see Debian's position as more proper within the realm of the F/OSS community. If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me. Especially, if your source contains all of the trademark data in the code, and altering the content requires a great deal of work.
When you come down to it, it's the same situation as I have with Windows XP. "Oh, of course you OWN the CD, you bought it. But you're only LICENSING the data on it." They hide all this un-free double plus ungood behind telling you that you're free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't screw with them.
If a program is released as free/open source under the GPL, or BSD, or any license for that matter, but contains artwork inside of it that is restricted, then that's absurd, and retarded! I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
Let's all trade our freedom of IP expression for the shackles of another IP prison!
Perhaps because Breast Cancer is less linked to a Carcinogen than just plain unfortunate luck to be born into a family with a high risk of breast cancer.
My mother, warning me of breast cancer, told me about a woman at her work, who had a radical mastectomy to prevent herself from developing breast cancer, because it was so prevalent in her family. Well, it sort of worked, she didn't get breast cancer in her breasts where she had a chance of detecting it through breast exams, rather it directly matastecized and attacked her body right away.
I seem to remember, not so long ago, the we fought an extensive and sometimes scary cold war to fight this sort of thing. We mocked and ridiculed communist block countries for their intrusive governments and their lack of civil rights. We're becoming the thing we once despised.
Totally... I keep reading about this stuff, and I'm only getting more worried. I'm thinking it's about time I start to think again about moving to Germany...
Of course, just merely suggesting that I'm afraid of the government, and want to move to another country may be grounds for picking me up for interrogation anymore... *sigh*
Not just the word "Breakthrough", but "Controversial", I hear that EVERY STPID EPISODE OF BONES THAT FOX MAKES. "Next week, on a controversial new Bones."
It's like, what? Did you run out of otherwise reasonably descriptive words to describe this episode, because you use it so much, I can't hardly imagine that "Bones" would be watched by anyone unless immediately after they feel an intense need to call their best friend and discuss at length the moral issues involved with creating a 3D CG representation of a dead person based on the bones. I mean, clay worked fine, but when you have to solve crimes on a deadline, I suppose CG would let you get it done faster.
This reminds me actually of in College, I had a friend, and we talked about how there are certain words that only advertisers use. Like "Hearty", when was the last time you heard anything but soup in a commercial described as "Hearty"?
"MMm... this Captain Crunch is really hearty today, Mom!"
No, it doesn't happen. Advertising people just learned some derived language of English I think. (My apologies to anyone on Slashdot who might be an advertising person, but... come on, hopefully you aren't coming up with this stupid stuff.)
There, you can get a verb conjugated in one of a number of languages, everything from the mundane German, English, Spanish, French to the more exotic Welch, Volapük, Esperanto, to the ancient, Old english, Old Swedish, Old Norse.
I've been using it for years, and certainly before the February 25, 2005 filing date.
Oh! Actually, I just hit upon the real reason. It's because Americans are so litagious. We'll sue generally over anything that we can. Or at least some of us will.
So, combine that with sex, and if you have a prudish woman in the office, look out!:(
As with many things in America, the "problem" is so systemic in the culture that you can't pull it away.
The person addresses this, in that he was only ever expecting this issue to be a private one. But in a true lesson of the internet, it was revealed that something can catch the internet bubble and become a craze that everyone wants a part in. This person is upset about the time lost of his life because everyone is bothering him about this stupid cellphone.
To him, having the cellphone or getting "revenge" just isn't worth the effort that he's even put in so far (having the pictures automatically uploaded through no action of his own).
A good example of a similar situation would be the Star Wars Kid. He didn't want that on the internet, and in another true lesson learned on the internet, once it's out there, you can't get it back.
Can't you kind of get a clue that maybe someone doesn't WANT to be the target of an internet craze?
It is entirely possible, and in many ways, it's entirely possible that this is a difference soley of perception.
I wouldn't doubt that there are the same number of women to men here as there are in scandanavia, but then all over Europe they're much less uptight about sexual matters, where as here, OMG, if it even hints at sex, then it's evil.
I'll give the example of the movie Hitch. In America, the movie is rated PG-13, that means that in order to see it before 13, it requires adult supervision. It's an incredibly tame movie, and honestly, I don't see anything that should require my explanation to a 12 year old. I have a German copy of the film which is rated as "Freigegeben ab 6 Jahren" or freely available from 6 years and on. This makes much more sense. But in America since it touches on the whole issue of dating, and thus sex, OMG, we have to hide our puritanical eyes! The Horror!
Guys here are much more prone to holding sexist attitudes, and these attitudes are the root of all of the issues related here in this article. From the advice to men not to talk to women or they threaten their job, to the advice that we're all a bunch of fem-nazis out to sue someone for even the most innocent action. It just generally in and of itself ends up making a hostile work environment. I mean, how would you feel about your job if absolutely none of the guys talked to you?
You're a thing. A bot. An semi-animate object whose input we have to take into consideration on a professional basis.
Right, and this is my whole point, in order to avoid the threat of sexual harassment, you would rather resort to a sexist view of woman as non-humans.
In sixteen years I have seen five cases where the guy was "expendable" to make HR happy since they didn't want to take the time to debunk the female involved. I'm sorry, but making eye contact during a conversation is not sexual harrassment.
Well, what with the way you're suggesting that women are treated where you work, it's no wonder that one of them would slap a sexual harassment suit, or a harassment suit of some kind on someone. Perhaps these women are making harassment issues out of things more than just eye contact, and you don't see anything wrong with it, because hell, they're just treating the woman like she 'ought be treated, so why is he being fired? Maybe because his actions *are* inappropriate! I don't know the details, but it doesn't sound like you know them either.
Management and HR, as much as you'd like to present them as such are not so retarded as to think that simply making eye contact during a conversation is sexual harassment. They're listening to all of the details that the woman is describing, and dealing with the person as appropriate.
If you want to know why you should feel threatened that your job is in jeopardy whenever you tak to a woman at all, it's because your attitude is inappropriate in our society. Women are not things, and to immediately ignore a woman simply because of her gender or because you feel that her gender is full of fem-nazis that just slathering to get any guy fired that they can, you are apparently so blind as to see how that is SEXISM, which is just as unjustified as sexual harassment.
There are men literally harassing us all the time, just most times we don't have anything we can do about it.
My reference here was at the bar, at the club, on the street, on the internet, basically everywhere outside of work. Amazingly I think that there is significantly less harassment at work than anywhere else.
As for the other type of man you mentioned. I'm a guy. When I see that in an office or a bar or on a street corner - I'm all over them. Educating them. Teaching them.
Stand up and be proud about that! I will honestly assure you that the best defence against a sexual harassment suit would be demonstrating a feminist attitude in your natural actions. If one women wants to accuse you of sexual harassment, the other women will support YOU because you're obviously sympathetic to their position, rather than being a jerk guy who would actually sexually harass a woman.
SO - MEN - STOP TALKING TO ALL WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE!!
The only thing that I'm so sad about is that you feel that this is the best solution.:( Unfortunately, it will actually injure the workplace rather than make anything better. Diversity means including people (or at least not actively dismissing people.), and taking the position that the only way to combat sexual harassment is to avoid talking to any women at all...:( It's just sad.
I won't argue with you, that in some cases that this would be the best solution, because either the company is so intent on witch hunting sexual harassers, or that there are women who would sue at the drop of a hat for anything that they could construe as sexual harassment, but I would argue that the best solution there is to find somehwhere else to work. If they're that intent on finding sexual harassment, then they won't let something like "But I never even talked to her!" get in the way of finding someone to fire for sexual harassment. After all, they have a quota to meet!
To address the serious issue here, and actually to unfortunately put you between a rock and hardplace, avoiding women and refusing to talk to them could be construed as sexist harassment. If you actively avoid them, or refuse to allow them to participate, and you're doing it just because they're women, then you're in the wrong, even if it is only because you are afraid of a sexual harassment lawsuit.
And to address this issue once and for all, I once worked at a call center, and I complained about another woman who worked there (and actually also happened to be the daughter of my mother's co-worker) because the conversations that she was having were inappropriate for the workplace. My boss (also a female) addressed those issues and told her that they were receiving complaints about her conversations, and that such a conversation could be construed as sexual harassment.
So, it is *not* just the women who are complaining, nor are the men the sole cause of complaints. It's just that men are usually too afraid to approach someone and tell them that a female coworker is making their job an uncomfortable or hostile place to work due to their comments. If they're offending you, swallow your pride and complain about it. If the management balks or says that they won't take it seriously go to THEIR boss and say that your boss is not addressing this issue, and that you don't think it's right that these women should be able to get away with sexual harassment. If you go high enough up the chain (which you're allowed to do in this case) you can make it clear that women don't get a free pass to harass you.
Are there some women who take sexual harassment too far? Yes
Dude, like, has the testosterone erroded your brain or something?
I admitted first thing that there are women who exploit this, but oh no, you have to immediately assign any defense of the woman's position as "ultra-feminist", and insist that the guys are never at fault.
You're reading what you want into all of this! Please open your eyes and see that hey, some feminist points are valid comments! If the next thing you start saying is that the fact that women earn about $.75 per every dollar that men earn is just a ploy of women to get sympathy, then there is absolutely nothing I can do for you, you're entirely lost in your sexist views that women don't have a right to be treated with respect, or decency, and that they're all either line-touting barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen making their husband dinner, or they're ultra-feminists.
And I don't really see it as being overly-sexual, more like comfortable with who I am and with the world around me, be it guys or gals...
If it works for you, then that's great. I suppose I should have said that I didn't think that your idea, or actions were wrong or bad. They're different. In fact, I applaud that you can get along with the guys, I know just how hard that can be sometimes.
But for me, when it comes down to it, I'd rather be hanging out with my girlfriends chatting and getting our nails done, or shopping at the mall, than hanging out with a bunch of guys at a bar. Just not what's interesting or fun for me.
But if it's fun for you, by all means! Please try and educate men that we're not all uptight bitches who are ready to slap a lawsuit on any guy who even remotely expresses any interest in us, or hell, just even has a conversation with us. That right there is just entirely ridiculous!
I don't have a problem with people explaining that there is a fear of sexual harassment suits, but I do have a problem with people coming up with crazy notions as to why that happens.
Very often your actions are sending signals that you're not particularly aware of, especially for a guy. You'll be implying and saying things with your non-verbal language that you may not particularly intend to voice, or your email will just have the wrong tone to it, and make it look really bad.
I had to write my boss an email at one point, because I felt he was harassing me (not sexually, just otherwise), and we had a pretty.. interesting conversation about what was going on, and it was clear that his actions, and words were not saying what he was hoping they would say, because the two of us communicate in different ways.
If you're a woman and you want to interact with a group of guys, let them know what you're comfortable with, and what you're not uncomfortable with. If they keep doing things that make you feel uncomfortable, and won't stop when you tell them to, that's wrong, and it's justification for a harassment claim.
If you're a guy/group of guys and you want to interact with a woman, then let them know that you would like to interact with them in a polite and respectful manner, and that you do not want to make them feel uncomfortable, and for them to let you know when you're making them feel uncomfortable. If you lay down straight of the bat that you have no desire to harass them, and if anything they're doing comes across as harassing, then you want to correct it, then you save yourself a bunch of trouble.
There would have to be nothing like going into a meeting about your sexual harassment and saying that at every moment you made it clear that you were willing to avert any possible harassment.
In fact, I taught THEM a few things (not like that, get your mind out of the gutter) and sometimes even had THEM blushing. *veg*
So, I start off being open and forward (no, I do NOT jump their bones) but I speak my mind, and my mind is in the gutter, and before long I fit right in. At least in the work place.
Not every girl feels this way though. I personally have tried this approach and it feels wrong, and I feel uncomfortable with it.
If this works for you, then that's fine, but I feel uncomfortable even around other women when they're being overly-sexual and open about things like this.
Some group of ultra-feminists with get-em-fired happy lawyers have ruined it for the rest of you. In an office full of men, we're scared to death of you, because even a wrong look can take away our ability to support our families. So please, for everyone's sake, just leave us alone.
I like how you immediately place all the blame on the females. Are there some women who take sexual harassment too far? Yes, but you have to be aware of the enormous pressure we're under. There are men literally harassing us all the time, just most times we don't have anything we can do about it.
You walk into a room, and guys size you up, rate you, and make a choice on if they'd like to "do you" or not. Many guys are just socially developed to harass women, it's what was expected of them their whole lives, and just what they're going to do.
You don't think that those ultra-macho guys that feel that every woman should sleep with them have had anything to do with all the fear of sexual harassment and everything? HAH! I can only laugh. I would likely go out on a limb and say that there have been more justified sexual harassment suits than unjustified suits.
So, why don't you take your sexist opinions, and find a nice guy-only world to live in, because you're obviously ill equipped to interact properly with women.
That's nothing, I use ROT1 141167095653376 times. I suppose that it should take someone quite a bit of time to break that encryption, I mean, it takes me long enough to encrypt, it would have to be hard for them to decrypt right?
While worms/viruses/etc are always a concern, Killer uses Linux built-in permission and security systems to help protect against this. In addition, users have complete control to choose which FNApps run on their card.
Linux is not immune to worms, it all depends on the apps that are running in the background. If *their* code is crappy, then it can break down the Linux permissions, and voila, worm. And while users may have complete control to choose which FNApps run on their card... um... they already have that option on real PCs, yet things get run without them knowing. Spyware and Adware are things that work around issues such as "you choose what to run".
This is also neglecting the idea of a root kit, such that an app could hide itself from the user.
This can yield multi-millisecond benefits, even on the fastest of today's computers.
Ok, now granted this is a Mac to a Linux box, but:
23 packets transmitted, 23 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.169/0.230/0.416/0.074 ms
This is between two computers on a gigabit network through a switch. Now, please, explain to me how I'm supposed to be expecting these multi-millisecond benefits from bypassing the UDP stack? I mean, if he seriously would like to tax me on this, I suppose I could write a UDP ping program and prove that my network gets that sort of a response regularly even over UDP.
And as the perfect finale, their question number 1 was from me:
1) Seriously, who else but a marketing department would think that it's a good idea to trademark a name describing everything "new" that your product does? And the page is so full of TLAs (three letter acronyms) that you need a glossary to read it.
Bigfoot: Virtually all technology companies trademark their features, including Intel, AMD, nVidia, Razer, and us! But we understand you want to understand the technology, so check out Killer's new product page at our website. You will find that it is much more detail driven in terms of how the technology works. Also, you'll find plenty of meat in our FAQ here.
I'd like to point out that my issue was that they're trademarking EVERYTHING, not just NetBurst, or SSE, or AltiVec, etc, or any other of the individual names that companies have thrown out to describe their new products. But when I look at an ad for a product and there literally is nothing describing the card or product that doesn't have a little (tm) next to it, I get suspicious.
When you have to go to such great lengths to make something sound so totally rad, that's usually the biggest indication that something is wrong with it.
As a personal rule of thumb: the slimier the salesman, the more seriously you need to consider what he's trying to offer you.
If they feel that they have to trademark a word "MaxFPS(tm)" that provides absolutely no information about what it does, rather than just say "Network Process Offloading" be warry.
Oh, and then the creativity of all their new trademarks. I mean, they're just words squished together. It's not like you're getting a cool name like "NetBurst" or "AltiVec" or something new, no, you get "PingThrottle", and "GameFirst", or "UltimatePing". Who did they have working as the creative director on these names? Nim Chimpsky? They are so uninteresting, and bland, that it just smacks of "We didn't want to even try to be cool, because we didn't care."
Personally, I for one welcome our new NetworkOverlords(tm), with their NiftyTrademarks(tm), with their SuperCreativity(tm).
Tell you what Bigfoot, send me a KillerNIC to review, and we'll start talking about if any of your lame lame lame marketing is worth anything at all. Until then, I'll slam it anytime I can. With my patent pending HyperDis(tm) technology.
As an aside, I do remember reading about code systems where double encryption acutally made the result encryption less secure. I don't remember the details, but now my brain is itching and I will have to do some research. Thanks!
The trivial example of this is ROT-13. When performing the encryption a second time, it will actually unencrypt the text itself.
If the encryption is a simple XOR of any key size length, then a double encrypt will actually not increase the complexity to break it at all, as if you had a plaintext value P, then xor it with K_1, then xor it with K_2, then you have only simply xor'ed it with (K_1 xor K_2) so definitely don't use any sort of mathematical operation that is commutative.
Slashdot Mirror
To Debian: We don't live in a black and white world. Please find another academic circular argument, and let this one go.
Right, because all IP the same right?
Honestly, what does Firefox have to worry about from anyone being able to freely modify the artwork of their piece? Someone might steal the artwork? OMG!!!! It's like, someone might steal a piece of Linux and use it in their own code!!!
OMG! The humanity! When will people learn that IP is there to PROTECT you, I mean, how could Microsoft ensure that Windows was the quality piece of software that they provide you, if it openned up its code to everyone? How could Firefox guarentee the quality of its artwork, if they don't protect it from evil hackers defacing it or using it?
Debian is pushing yet another IP issue into the light. Copyleft + Trademark = Stupid.
The article also states that Mozilla is expecting Debian to submit all modifications for review, and that if the modifications were not satisfactory, whether the code was in deep-freeze or not, that they would have to change the name.
A lot of this comes down to "what's in a name"? Personally, I see Debian's position as more proper within the realm of the F/OSS community. If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me. Especially, if your source contains all of the trademark data in the code, and altering the content requires a great deal of work.
When you come down to it, it's the same situation as I have with Windows XP. "Oh, of course you OWN the CD, you bought it. But you're only LICENSING the data on it." They hide all this un-free double plus ungood behind telling you that you're free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't screw with them.
If a program is released as free/open source under the GPL, or BSD, or any license for that matter, but contains artwork inside of it that is restricted, then that's absurd, and retarded! I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
Let's all trade our freedom of IP expression for the shackles of another IP prison!
Perhaps because Breast Cancer is less linked to a Carcinogen than just plain unfortunate luck to be born into a family with a high risk of breast cancer.
My mother, warning me of breast cancer, told me about a woman at her work, who had a radical mastectomy to prevent herself from developing breast cancer, because it was so prevalent in her family. Well, it sort of worked, she didn't get breast cancer in her breasts where she had a chance of detecting it through breast exams, rather it directly matastecized and attacked her body right away.
I seem to remember, not so long ago, the we fought an extensive and sometimes scary cold war to fight this sort of thing. We mocked and ridiculed communist block countries for their intrusive governments and their lack of civil rights. We're becoming the thing we once despised.
Totally... I keep reading about this stuff, and I'm only getting more worried. I'm thinking it's about time I start to think again about moving to Germany...
Of course, just merely suggesting that I'm afraid of the government, and want to move to another country may be grounds for picking me up for interrogation anymore... *sigh*
I know that Pirates ARRRRRRRRR Great, but they don't count for me ;)
Not just the word "Breakthrough", but "Controversial", I hear that EVERY STPID EPISODE OF BONES THAT FOX MAKES. "Next week, on a controversial new Bones."
It's like, what? Did you run out of otherwise reasonably descriptive words to describe this episode, because you use it so much, I can't hardly imagine that "Bones" would be watched by anyone unless immediately after they feel an intense need to call their best friend and discuss at length the moral issues involved with creating a 3D CG representation of a dead person based on the bones. I mean, clay worked fine, but when you have to solve crimes on a deadline, I suppose CG would let you get it done faster.
This reminds me actually of in College, I had a friend, and we talked about how there are certain words that only advertisers use. Like "Hearty", when was the last time you heard anything but soup in a commercial described as "Hearty"?
"MMm... this Captain Crunch is really hearty today, Mom!"
No, it doesn't happen. Advertising people just learned some derived language of English I think. (My apologies to anyone on Slashdot who might be an advertising person, but... come on, hopefully you aren't coming up with this stupid stuff.)
Heh, that came to my mind, too, while reading that.
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/
There, you can get a verb conjugated in one of a number of languages, everything from the mundane German, English, Spanish, French to the more exotic Welch, Volapük, Esperanto, to the ancient, Old english, Old Swedish, Old Norse.
I've been using it for years, and certainly before the February 25, 2005 filing date.
Oh! Actually, I just hit upon the real reason. It's because Americans are so litagious. We'll sue generally over anything that we can. Or at least some of us will.
:(
So, combine that with sex, and if you have a prudish woman in the office, look out!
As with many things in America, the "problem" is so systemic in the culture that you can't pull it away.
The person addresses this, in that he was only ever expecting this issue to be a private one. But in a true lesson of the internet, it was revealed that something can catch the internet bubble and become a craze that everyone wants a part in. This person is upset about the time lost of his life because everyone is bothering him about this stupid cellphone.
To him, having the cellphone or getting "revenge" just isn't worth the effort that he's even put in so far (having the pictures automatically uploaded through no action of his own).
A good example of a similar situation would be the Star Wars Kid. He didn't want that on the internet, and in another true lesson learned on the internet, once it's out there, you can't get it back.
Can't you kind of get a clue that maybe someone doesn't WANT to be the target of an internet craze?
Right, so it's just like an extended warranty that you can get from Best Buy...
Again, something that the vast majority of people don't need, but the company offers because it's free money to them.
It is entirely possible, and in many ways, it's entirely possible that this is a difference soley of perception.
I wouldn't doubt that there are the same number of women to men here as there are in scandanavia, but then all over Europe they're much less uptight about sexual matters, where as here, OMG, if it even hints at sex, then it's evil.
I'll give the example of the movie Hitch. In America, the movie is rated PG-13, that means that in order to see it before 13, it requires adult supervision. It's an incredibly tame movie, and honestly, I don't see anything that should require my explanation to a 12 year old. I have a German copy of the film which is rated as "Freigegeben ab 6 Jahren" or freely available from 6 years and on. This makes much more sense. But in America since it touches on the whole issue of dating, and thus sex, OMG, we have to hide our puritanical eyes! The Horror!
Guys here are much more prone to holding sexist attitudes, and these attitudes are the root of all of the issues related here in this article. From the advice to men not to talk to women or they threaten their job, to the advice that we're all a bunch of fem-nazis out to sue someone for even the most innocent action. It just generally in and of itself ends up making a hostile work environment. I mean, how would you feel about your job if absolutely none of the guys talked to you?
God, I'd feel totally uncomfortable.
That you resort to this ad-hom is telling.
Use of a falacy does not make my argument false.
You're a thing. A bot. An semi-animate object whose input we have to take into consideration on a professional basis.
Right, and this is my whole point, in order to avoid the threat of sexual harassment, you would rather resort to a sexist view of woman as non-humans.
In sixteen years I have seen five cases where the guy was "expendable" to make HR happy since they didn't want to take the time to debunk the female involved. I'm sorry, but making eye contact during a conversation is not sexual harrassment.
Well, what with the way you're suggesting that women are treated where you work, it's no wonder that one of them would slap a sexual harassment suit, or a harassment suit of some kind on someone. Perhaps these women are making harassment issues out of things more than just eye contact, and you don't see anything wrong with it, because hell, they're just treating the woman like she 'ought be treated, so why is he being fired? Maybe because his actions *are* inappropriate! I don't know the details, but it doesn't sound like you know them either.
Management and HR, as much as you'd like to present them as such are not so retarded as to think that simply making eye contact during a conversation is sexual harassment. They're listening to all of the details that the woman is describing, and dealing with the person as appropriate.
If you want to know why you should feel threatened that your job is in jeopardy whenever you tak to a woman at all, it's because your attitude is inappropriate in our society. Women are not things, and to immediately ignore a woman simply because of her gender or because you feel that her gender is full of fem-nazis that just slathering to get any guy fired that they can, you are apparently so blind as to see how that is SEXISM, which is just as unjustified as sexual harassment.
There are men literally harassing us all the time, just most times we don't have anything we can do about it.
:( Unfortunately, it will actually injure the workplace rather than make anything better. Diversity means including people (or at least not actively dismissing people.), and taking the position that the only way to combat sexual harassment is to avoid talking to any women at all... :( It's just sad.
My reference here was at the bar, at the club, on the street, on the internet, basically everywhere outside of work. Amazingly I think that there is significantly less harassment at work than anywhere else.
As for the other type of man you mentioned. I'm a guy. When I see that in an office or a bar or on a street corner - I'm all over them. Educating them. Teaching them.
Stand up and be proud about that! I will honestly assure you that the best defence against a sexual harassment suit would be demonstrating a feminist attitude in your natural actions. If one women wants to accuse you of sexual harassment, the other women will support YOU because you're obviously sympathetic to their position, rather than being a jerk guy who would actually sexually harass a woman.
SO - MEN - STOP TALKING TO ALL WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE!!
The only thing that I'm so sad about is that you feel that this is the best solution.
I won't argue with you, that in some cases that this would be the best solution, because either the company is so intent on witch hunting sexual harassers, or that there are women who would sue at the drop of a hat for anything that they could construe as sexual harassment, but I would argue that the best solution there is to find somehwhere else to work. If they're that intent on finding sexual harassment, then they won't let something like "But I never even talked to her!" get in the way of finding someone to fire for sexual harassment. After all, they have a quota to meet!
To address the serious issue here, and actually to unfortunately put you between a rock and hardplace, avoiding women and refusing to talk to them could be construed as sexist harassment. If you actively avoid them, or refuse to allow them to participate, and you're doing it just because they're women, then you're in the wrong, even if it is only because you are afraid of a sexual harassment lawsuit.
And to address this issue once and for all, I once worked at a call center, and I complained about another woman who worked there (and actually also happened to be the daughter of my mother's co-worker) because the conversations that she was having were inappropriate for the workplace. My boss (also a female) addressed those issues and told her that they were receiving complaints about her conversations, and that such a conversation could be construed as sexual harassment.
So, it is *not* just the women who are complaining, nor are the men the sole cause of complaints. It's just that men are usually too afraid to approach someone and tell them that a female coworker is making their job an uncomfortable or hostile place to work due to their comments. If they're offending you, swallow your pride and complain about it. If the management balks or says that they won't take it seriously go to THEIR boss and say that your boss is not addressing this issue, and that you don't think it's right that these women should be able to get away with sexual harassment. If you go high enough up the chain (which you're allowed to do in this case) you can make it clear that women don't get a free pass to harass you.
Are there some women who take sexual harassment too far? Yes
Dude, like, has the testosterone erroded your brain or something?
I admitted first thing that there are women who exploit this, but oh no, you have to immediately assign any defense of the woman's position as "ultra-feminist", and insist that the guys are never at fault.
You're reading what you want into all of this! Please open your eyes and see that hey, some feminist points are valid comments! If the next thing you start saying is that the fact that women earn about $.75 per every dollar that men earn is just a ploy of women to get sympathy, then there is absolutely nothing I can do for you, you're entirely lost in your sexist views that women don't have a right to be treated with respect, or decency, and that they're all either line-touting barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen making their husband dinner, or they're ultra-feminists.
Grow the hell up!
And I don't really see it as being overly-sexual, more like comfortable with who I am and with the world around me, be it guys or gals...
If it works for you, then that's great. I suppose I should have said that I didn't think that your idea, or actions were wrong or bad. They're different. In fact, I applaud that you can get along with the guys, I know just how hard that can be sometimes.
But for me, when it comes down to it, I'd rather be hanging out with my girlfriends chatting and getting our nails done, or shopping at the mall, than hanging out with a bunch of guys at a bar. Just not what's interesting or fun for me.
But if it's fun for you, by all means! Please try and educate men that we're not all uptight bitches who are ready to slap a lawsuit on any guy who even remotely expresses any interest in us, or hell, just even has a conversation with us. That right there is just entirely ridiculous!
Most insightful comment I've seen posted here.
I don't have a problem with people explaining that there is a fear of sexual harassment suits, but I do have a problem with people coming up with crazy notions as to why that happens.
Very often your actions are sending signals that you're not particularly aware of, especially for a guy. You'll be implying and saying things with your non-verbal language that you may not particularly intend to voice, or your email will just have the wrong tone to it, and make it look really bad.
I had to write my boss an email at one point, because I felt he was harassing me (not sexually, just otherwise), and we had a pretty.. interesting conversation about what was going on, and it was clear that his actions, and words were not saying what he was hoping they would say, because the two of us communicate in different ways.
If you're a woman and you want to interact with a group of guys, let them know what you're comfortable with, and what you're not uncomfortable with. If they keep doing things that make you feel uncomfortable, and won't stop when you tell them to, that's wrong, and it's justification for a harassment claim.
If you're a guy/group of guys and you want to interact with a woman, then let them know that you would like to interact with them in a polite and respectful manner, and that you do not want to make them feel uncomfortable, and for them to let you know when you're making them feel uncomfortable. If you lay down straight of the bat that you have no desire to harass them, and if anything they're doing comes across as harassing, then you want to correct it, then you save yourself a bunch of trouble.
There would have to be nothing like going into a meeting about your sexual harassment and saying that at every moment you made it clear that you were willing to avert any possible harassment.
In fact, I taught THEM a few things (not like that, get your mind out of the gutter) and sometimes even had THEM blushing. *veg*
So, I start off being open and forward (no, I do NOT jump their bones) but I speak my mind, and my mind is in the gutter, and before long I fit right in. At least in the work place.
Not every girl feels this way though. I personally have tried this approach and it feels wrong, and I feel uncomfortable with it.
If this works for you, then that's fine, but I feel uncomfortable even around other women when they're being overly-sexual and open about things like this.
Some group of ultra-feminists with get-em-fired happy lawyers have ruined it for the rest of you. In an office full of men, we're scared to death of you, because even a wrong look can take away our ability to support our families. So please, for everyone's sake, just leave us alone.
I like how you immediately place all the blame on the females. Are there some women who take sexual harassment too far? Yes, but you have to be aware of the enormous pressure we're under. There are men literally harassing us all the time, just most times we don't have anything we can do about it.
You walk into a room, and guys size you up, rate you, and make a choice on if they'd like to "do you" or not. Many guys are just socially developed to harass women, it's what was expected of them their whole lives, and just what they're going to do.
You don't think that those ultra-macho guys that feel that every woman should sleep with them have had anything to do with all the fear of sexual harassment and everything? HAH! I can only laugh. I would likely go out on a limb and say that there have been more justified sexual harassment suits than unjustified suits.
So, why don't you take your sexist opinions, and find a nice guy-only world to live in, because you're obviously ill equipped to interact properly with women.
Lol, oh yeah, and as for the second in your Netflix queue, Kong dies.
That's nothing, I use ROT1 141167095653376 times. I suppose that it should take someone quite a bit of time to break that encryption, I mean, it takes me long enough to encrypt, it would have to be hard for them to decrypt right?
Windows should lock from the inside, again with deadlocks.
Maybe this would help keep the spyware off my computer...
While worms/viruses/etc are always a concern, Killer uses Linux built-in permission and security systems to help protect against this. In addition, users have complete control to choose which FNApps run on their card.
Linux is not immune to worms, it all depends on the apps that are running in the background. If *their* code is crappy, then it can break down the Linux permissions, and voila, worm. And while users may have complete control to choose which FNApps run on their card... um... they already have that option on real PCs, yet things get run without them knowing. Spyware and Adware are things that work around issues such as "you choose what to run".
This is also neglecting the idea of a root kit, such that an app could hide itself from the user.
This can yield multi-millisecond benefits, even on the fastest of today's computers.
Ok, now granted this is a Mac to a Linux box, but:
23 packets transmitted, 23 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.169/0.230/0.416/0.074 ms
This is between two computers on a gigabit network through a switch. Now, please, explain to me how I'm supposed to be expecting these multi-millisecond benefits from bypassing the UDP stack? I mean, if he seriously would like to tax me on this, I suppose I could write a UDP ping program and prove that my network gets that sort of a response regularly even over UDP.
And as the perfect finale, their question number 1 was from me:
1) Seriously, who else but a marketing department would think that it's a good idea to trademark a name describing everything "new" that your product does? And the page is so full of TLAs (three letter acronyms) that you need a glossary to read it.
Bigfoot: Virtually all technology companies trademark their features, including Intel, AMD, nVidia, Razer, and us! But we understand you want to understand the technology, so check out Killer's new product page at our website. You will find that it is much more detail driven in terms of how the technology works. Also, you'll find plenty of meat in our FAQ here.
I'd like to point out that my issue was that they're trademarking EVERYTHING, not just NetBurst, or SSE, or AltiVec, etc, or any other of the individual names that companies have thrown out to describe their new products. But when I look at an ad for a product and there literally is nothing describing the card or product that doesn't have a little (tm) next to it, I get suspicious.
When you have to go to such great lengths to make something sound so totally rad, that's usually the biggest indication that something is wrong with it.
As a personal rule of thumb: the slimier the salesman, the more seriously you need to consider what he's trying to offer you.
If they feel that they have to trademark a word "MaxFPS(tm)" that provides absolutely no information about what it does, rather than just say "Network Process Offloading" be warry.
Oh, and then the creativity of all their new trademarks. I mean, they're just words squished together. It's not like you're getting a cool name like "NetBurst" or "AltiVec" or something new, no, you get "PingThrottle", and "GameFirst", or "UltimatePing". Who did they have working as the creative director on these names? Nim Chimpsky? They are so uninteresting, and bland, that it just smacks of "We didn't want to even try to be cool, because we didn't care."
Personally, I for one welcome our new NetworkOverlords(tm), with their NiftyTrademarks(tm), with their SuperCreativity(tm).
Tell you what Bigfoot, send me a KillerNIC to review, and we'll start talking about if any of your lame lame lame marketing is worth anything at all. Until then, I'll slam it anytime I can. With my patent pending HyperDis(tm) technology.
As an aside, I do remember reading about code systems where double encryption acutally made the result encryption less secure. I don't remember the details, but now my brain is itching and I will have to do some research. Thanks!
The trivial example of this is ROT-13. When performing the encryption a second time, it will actually unencrypt the text itself.
If the encryption is a simple XOR of any key size length, then a double encrypt will actually not increase the complexity to break it at all, as if you had a plaintext value P, then xor it with K_1, then xor it with K_2, then you have only simply xor'ed it with (K_1 xor K_2) so definitely don't use any sort of mathematical operation that is commutative.
Well, at least they didn't write "excellentest", that just wouldn't be cromulent.