You are feeding a troll. Thought I'd mention it even though I bit too.
Well, regardless of of feeidng the troll, I wanted to ensure that people were aware of the actual facts, such as: the DMCA was not involved in the case at all. Basically, showing that I was more informed about the topic than the troll ever was.
I'm more interested in people understanding the details, rather than assuming that the DMCA is the only P.O.S. copyright enforcement available to the *iaa.
Are you fucking stupid or do you just not know how to read and thus are going off the recollections of fucking stupid people and what they told you about the case? Because when you abuse DMCA take downs to take down videos that have simply have no infringing content whatsoever because you don't like what they are saying, that is basically censorship. I don't expect a retard to understand though, so it's okay if you just act like it's not in your next reply.
I know you're defending me, but the DMCA actually wasn't involved. It was a private tool provided to UMG under contract.
It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech)
It was censorship even in the narrow sense - the DMCA is an application of governmental powers to effect censorship. The fact that was invoked by a private entity is irrelevant - it's the government that's enforcing it.
Actually, the DMCA wasn't actually involved at all. Apparently, UMG (oddly, not to be confused with Universal Music Group) abused a simple contract that they signed with YouTube. No government enforcement involved at all... in fact, no laws except "keep your word" need be enacted to enforce the censorship at all, and in fact, the only government enforcement available in the situation was to keep UMG from abusing its extra-judicial takedown rights...
Because the original legal case was about censorship.
Only in the eyes of misguided fucktards like yourself Princess. The original legal case was about illegal use of the DMCA to take down material. It had nothing to do with "censorship" nor "free speech", despite what you and the tinfoil hat brigade may like to think. Why don't you leave the legal and technical discussions to the men who know what they are talking about instead of getting your pretty little head confused about such basic concepts?
BTW, shouldn't you be in the kitchen baking?
Oh see, it's funny, because it's intentionally sexist. Now, ignoring all the sexist bullshit, because it's just not worth getting into, because it's a total tangent to the real issues at matter...
Illegal use of the DMCA is considered a form of censorship in colloquial speech. I noted in my post that it wasn't about "pure" censorship, which is a government making specific speech illegal. However, it is colloquial censorship in that it is someone blocking access to someone else's content with or without legal authority.
Also, the original filing of the suit commented that it were an abuse of the DMCA, but Universal Music Group the original defendant in the case, pointed out that not only were they not actually responsible for the offending action, (it was UMG which is a subsidiary company of Universal Music Group, but not jointly-liable) but as well, it wasn't even an abuse of the DMCA, as UMG was making use of the tools that they were granted access to by contract with YouTube, that allowed UMG to bypass even the DMCA process. Thus, the whole situation was chalked up to, "YouTube granted UMG that access, and the only injured party in this abuse of tools provided was YouTube, and thus MegaUpload has no valid standing to file suit in the first place in a breach of contract between UMG and YouTube."
But getting back to the point, colloquially "censorship" is used by the general public, and in this case the slashdot categories to refer to anything where a non-first-party effects the removal of speech of another person without their consent. But you know, enforcing legal definitions of words on an informal forum such as slashdot seems like a way much better idea than using the same jargon, dialect and register as the audience of that forum.
But only if NZ actually extradites them. Please also note the DMCA is valid for the US only., the rest of the world (rightfully) wipe their asses with this piece of legal sh**.
Hah... you're silly because you think that the US seems to accept that their laws don't apply universally. Most of the US government seems to be of the attitude that if it's on the internets, then it's US jurisdiction.
I love how slashdot chose to classify this megaupload story as "censorship". How about putting this in the piracy section?
Because the original legal case was about censorship. That megauploads was also engaged in piracy and such is besides the point. UMG used YouTubes tools to take down a video supporting megauploads without proper due process or anything like that. It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech).
That's what I'm wondering about, do you feel like you really "get" the open source community, and RMS and all the fights about GNU vs GNU/Linux? Do you think you'd feel more a part of it if the GNU manifesto had less emphasis on purity and freedom, and more on sharing and having fun?
Eh... I don't think I would feel more a part of it. I like the GNU manifesto, they have a purpose, and one that my beliefs happen to coincide with. Sure we're not on the exact same page, and I'm not as rabidly about purity and freedom as RMS and other GNU advocates, but in the same way, when I share stuff, I don't want others to be able to unshare it. So it works. We need the rabid bulldogs, and tame poodles as well.
N.B.: I did not actually read the GNU Manifesto. I already agree 100% with the GPL already, even the GPLv3... so I see little point in reading a Manifesto that I might have a different take on, but whose kool-aid I have no doubt already drunk.
Nice display of bigotry. You think women aren't just as good at making environments hostile? Have you ever seen a crowd of women and their attitude to a single man? Especially if he's socially awkward or even just shy?
I don't normally experience hostility from a crowd of women, so I'm not as experienced in feeling the hostility. But I've acknowledged in posts above (if you had bothered to read through them) that indeed, women in an isolated environment can produce a pretty exclusive culture of men as well.
I find very little as pathetic as the woman that pretends to be upset that she's had to act the bitch in order to get promoted. I don't act like a bitch to get promoted so why the hell does she think it's acceptable for her?
BECAUSE WE DON'T GET PROMOTED OTHERWISE... and I wasn't particularly even talking about being promoted. When I was talking about the "upper levels of programming", I meant working at multinational computer companies, even as an individual contributor. Shit doesn't get done from women when they state their case plainly and directly, and things get done slowly when women have to use the usual "hey, why don't we do this..." approach to getting things done.
I've been called out from a boss for stating a simple business case need and directly stating what needs to be done. He called it "rude and insensitive". I immediately fired off an email to the individual apologizing profusely for being rude and insensitive, and he stated that he had no idea what I was talking about, because he didn't see anything rude or insensitive in the email at all.
When we do EXACTLY what you men do everyday, SOME men call us out as being bitches and being bossy.
And I've noticed that most of the women I worked with had a personality type where they just didn't let shit bother them, because they've had to deal with it all throughout college, and all throughout their career. It's not that being in programming requires a woman to be bitchy, or even that working in programming makes a woman bitchy, it's that THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO PUT UP WITH THE SHIT.
That's NOT what I'm saying AT ALL. Married men are just as likely to have "real lives" instead of contributing to open source projects. But there is no denying there are a lot more single techno-geek men than women.
I'm not saying that married men can't have real lives. What I'm saying is that there is a cultural allowance and in some cases expectation that men will almost straight up ignore their families and be little more than just a financial provider...
The culture is certainly turning around, and that's an awesome good thing. But some people are still raised in these odd holdout families where this cultural notion is still prevalent. And while the culture around "I never see my dad, because he's always working" has made real headway towards disappearing, it seems that the cultural differences between attitudes about single men, vs single women remain strongly in force. But then girls are raised almost as soon as they can talk about marriage, and finding prince charming, etc. It's little wonder that women have a stronger driving force towards pairing up, and getting married.
For me open source really seems to be about being a rebel and fighting for freedom, however I don't really feel like those concepts strike the same chord with women. My thought is that maybe we need to think about emphasizing the sharing and collaborative aspects of open source, but I'm sadly not that good at understanding what women want.
I never actually considered that other people would contribute to open source for different reasons than I. (Functional solipsism is actually pretty common.) It's odd that you would see yourself as a rebel fighting for freedom, I've never felt that way. I pretty much always have just felt like sharing what I did is the best way to get it noticed. It's basically like, "here, enjoy, have fun, I did this, and I think it's cool, and I want you to enjoy it!"
An intelligent, educated woman is very unlikely to remain single for long. I suspect the root cause of the disparity between open source and proprietary participation of women on projects is due to the simple fact that once they go home from work, they have real lives to live, while many of "the guys" in the industry are techno-freaks with little or no social life and plenty of spare time to devote to OSS or Free projects.
Like myself. 47 and counting. *sigh*
But this is predominantly culture, and gender roles. Men are allowed to ignore family life for work, and in earlier times it was almost mandated that they eschew all household duties and duties raising children and just "bring home the bacon".
Indeed. Unfortunately, once a culture grows up that is very single-gender heavy, it can become hostile to anyone not conforming with the expected gender roles.
It almost becomes a feedback loop, mostly men get into a field, and pioneer it, as a result the field ends up male-dominated, as a result, females feel excluded when joining, and elect to drop out rather than swim against the current, so field ends up more male-dominated.:(
Any genetically-influenced trait is going to show a wider bell curve for males.
We don't even need genetically-influenced traits. Boys are generally raised to be individualists, to seek out, to explore, to make their own path. Women are generally raised to conform to peer pressure, and social attitudes.
Everything the grandparent post said could be accounted for by gender-role expectations, rather than genetically-influenced traits. Also, it's not really true. For example, tortoise-shell cats are exclusively female. Thus, the bell-curve of variation in tortoise-shell cats is infinitely larger in female cats than in male cats.
But like I said, the problem is cultural. We might have laws saying women are equal in the workplace, but modern families raise kids on two distinct tracks depending on their chromosome composition, and it breeds this behavior. That needs to be fixed rather than trying to do damage control after the fact.
Well spoken. If we confine our children less to cultural gender roles, then "cross gender-role" activities won't be looked down upon, and men and women will begin acting how they want to act, rather than constantly conforming to stereotypes to appease their peers.
Women are given free admission on lady's nights in order to drive up attendance from men. "Look, we have women!" is an attractive position for a bar/night club. If women had a generally difficult time of finding men willing to hit on them, then men's nights would exist as well.
"Lady's night" is borne out of bars/nightclubs realizing that men will pay more to go to a club/nightclub that has an attractive selection of women. Some even forgo this entire matter, and simply hire women to work, and potentially even take their clothes off for men.
Shall we be upset that strip clubs target men by paying women to work there, while men have to pay to be there? Or shall we recognize that strip clubs are offering a service?
In the same way, lady's night is the bar/nightclub offering men the opportunity to go to a place where they know women will be in attendance, only the bar/nightclub is getting away with not paying the women for populating their bar/nightclub.
Once nightclub I knew would routinely "give away" parties to people who sign up for their advertising. Show up 2 hours early, and get a buffet-style selection of appetizers and pre-admission drink prices all night. What do they get in exchange? They get a "seed population" at their bar/nightclub so that early comers to the club won't feel like they're sitting in a dead hang-out.
Want to get rid of "lady's night"? Change the culture so that women ask out men as much as men ask out women, and change the culture so that men aren't decisively more interested in attending co-ed parties as sausage fests. Once you've removed the incentive of guys to pay to get the opportunity to be around women, the bars/nightclubs will stop giving discounts to women to populate their bar/nightclub with women so that men are more likely to go to their bar/nightclub than the one across the street.
If there's one thing that winds me up more than men saying women can't do something as well because they're female (or women saying men can't do something because they're male), it's someone saying they can't do it because they're the wrong gender. That's fine if all you're talking about is pissing over a fence while standing straight up, but for anything else?
Indeed... I get annoyed at men who think that laundry shouldn't be their job either. Gender splits in general are bogus.
I actually dated a guy for awhile, and he did the laundry, and I did the handy-work jobs, like assembling his A/C unit, and setting up TVs the cable, etc. Why? In his words, because I'm smarter than him. v_v
Whatever, at least we weren't dividing jobs based on gender.;)
Very true. Institutionalization of gender into a field is harmful for both sexes in general. I know here in the US, nursing is also female over-represented. People look down upon male nurses and consider them to be "pussies" or other such feminizing word that men choose to express "lack of masculinity" against each other.
I'm sorry for the institutional pressures that you felt going through nursing training and such, and imagine that you got that just from studying math and science.:(
Single-gender professions tend to get so worked up in expectations of that single-gender and cultures that reinforce those conditions, it makes it really hard to break the cycle and integrate anything.:(
Oh, the "hostile environment" idea. Any environment where the boys grossly outnumber the girls is automatically hostile to the girls. I should think however, that nerdy though we are, we are a tiny bit more respectful than other boys clubs such as the military, and the average sport. But maybe we are worse because we're so starved for a bit of affection. And we certainly don't have neat uniforms.
I've actually related the attitudes of the men I worked with to stereotypical football player behavior. Any group of isolated men will develop a culture that is exclusive of women, primarily because the environment was already exclusive of women.
So, whether it's a jock locker room, or a F/OSS irc chat channel, or mailing list, women typically feel left out and excluded, because the men have already established a culture that excludes them. Not necessarily because they want to exclude women, but because there was no selective pressure to produce an inclusive culture.
But gentlemen's clubs are not allowed any more. They've been struck down legally. You are, however, allowed to have women's only clubs.
I think you've missed something, but private clubs are allowed by law to use whatever admission criteria that they want.
In fact, Hooters is allowed to employ an all-female staff, because they are hiring "entertainers" not service personnel, and thus are allowed to type-cast their roles.
You see, a theater company can blatantly refuse to accept a woman for the role of Hamlet all they want, because Hamlet is a man. And any woman attempting to get a court to force a production to allow her to be Hamlet is doomed to failure.
Pretty much this. Males seem to excel at making an environment hostile towards women, which ok in the locker room, gentleman's clubs, and other places where men have every right to be alone.
Unfortunately, this often ends up happening where men don't have a right to be alone, but just are alone for any of the myriad of reasons that it happens. Suddenly, programming is a boy's club, or any other particular profession or hobby. Now, women have to overcome not only "crossing gender roles" in order to participate, but they find themselves in a hostile environment where men seem to expect that no women are allowed.
And then, heaven forbid any woman comment that such an attitude is sexist, lest they be roundly shouted out with anti-PC arguments, when asking for people to be PC is different from asking people to not be sexist.
Is it any wonder that the only women who make it into the highest levels of programming have learned to cope by pretending to be a guy, or acting the bitch just to get their way?:(
Maybe if there were some jobs in this country people wouldn't have to steal copper. It didn't happen NEARLY as much a few years back and I doubt the number of meth heads has increased that much since then. 8.5% unemployment is bullshit, it's more like 15% if you count everyone, not just the people currently getting benefits. Also, why not do something about the places that buy the scrap metal?
Correlation != causation.
It could just be that criminals that have always been stealing stuff, have now found that stealing copper cables involves far less risk, and better rewards than stealing from people's houses.
There's far more statistics to be done to understand any of the underlying causes... but you know, blindly blaming it on a bad economy works just as well.
Competition Act. Section 21: Restrictive Trade Practices. Section 55: False or Misleading Representations (Specifically 55.a.v.) And Section 56 & 57: Unconscionable Conduct. (Probably 56.2.d, and Section 57.1 in general.) And the Trade Descriptions Act. Specifically sections regarding "Prohibition of False Trade Description". And of course the Defamation act, because of the false claims about Mocality's business practices.
And possibly the Witchcraft Act. Because computers, you know.
Thanks.:) I never denied that it wasn't illegal, was just calling on people to avoid speculation.
Slashdot Mirror
You are feeding a troll. Thought I'd mention it even though I bit too.
Well, regardless of of feeidng the troll, I wanted to ensure that people were aware of the actual facts, such as: the DMCA was not involved in the case at all. Basically, showing that I was more informed about the topic than the troll ever was.
I'm more interested in people understanding the details, rather than assuming that the DMCA is the only P.O.S. copyright enforcement available to the *iaa.
Are you fucking stupid or do you just not know how to read and thus are going off the recollections of fucking stupid people and what they told you about the case? Because when you abuse DMCA take downs to take down videos that have simply have no infringing content whatsoever because you don't like what they are saying, that is basically censorship. I don't expect a retard to understand though, so it's okay if you just act like it's not in your next reply.
I know you're defending me, but the DMCA actually wasn't involved. It was a private tool provided to UMG under contract.
It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech)
It was censorship even in the narrow sense - the DMCA is an application of governmental powers to effect censorship. The fact that was invoked by a private entity is irrelevant - it's the government that's enforcing it.
Actually, the DMCA wasn't actually involved at all. Apparently, UMG (oddly, not to be confused with Universal Music Group) abused a simple contract that they signed with YouTube. No government enforcement involved at all... in fact, no laws except "keep your word" need be enacted to enforce the censorship at all, and in fact, the only government enforcement available in the situation was to keep UMG from abusing its extra-judicial takedown rights...
Only in the eyes of misguided fucktards like yourself Princess. The original legal case was about illegal use of the DMCA to take down material. It had nothing to do with "censorship" nor "free speech", despite what you and the tinfoil hat brigade may like to think. Why don't you leave the legal and technical discussions to the men who know what they are talking about instead of getting your pretty little head confused about such basic concepts?
BTW, shouldn't you be in the kitchen baking?
Oh see, it's funny, because it's intentionally sexist. Now, ignoring all the sexist bullshit, because it's just not worth getting into, because it's a total tangent to the real issues at matter...
Illegal use of the DMCA is considered a form of censorship in colloquial speech. I noted in my post that it wasn't about "pure" censorship, which is a government making specific speech illegal. However, it is colloquial censorship in that it is someone blocking access to someone else's content with or without legal authority.
Also, the original filing of the suit commented that it were an abuse of the DMCA, but Universal Music Group the original defendant in the case, pointed out that not only were they not actually responsible for the offending action, (it was UMG which is a subsidiary company of Universal Music Group, but not jointly-liable) but as well, it wasn't even an abuse of the DMCA, as UMG was making use of the tools that they were granted access to by contract with YouTube, that allowed UMG to bypass even the DMCA process. Thus, the whole situation was chalked up to, "YouTube granted UMG that access, and the only injured party in this abuse of tools provided was YouTube, and thus MegaUpload has no valid standing to file suit in the first place in a breach of contract between UMG and YouTube."
But getting back to the point, colloquially "censorship" is used by the general public, and in this case the slashdot categories to refer to anything where a non-first-party effects the removal of speech of another person without their consent. But you know, enforcing legal definitions of words on an informal forum such as slashdot seems like a way much better idea than using the same jargon, dialect and register as the audience of that forum.
And most of the world's governments agree with them.
Oh... :( you made me sad.
But only if NZ actually extradites them. Please also note the DMCA is valid for the US only., the rest of the world (rightfully) wipe their asses with this piece of legal sh**.
Hah... you're silly because you think that the US seems to accept that their laws don't apply universally. Most of the US government seems to be of the attitude that if it's on the internets, then it's US jurisdiction.
I love how slashdot chose to classify this megaupload story as "censorship". How about putting this in the piracy section?
Because the original legal case was about censorship. That megauploads was also engaged in piracy and such is besides the point. UMG used YouTubes tools to take down a video supporting megauploads without proper due process or anything like that. It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech).
That's what I'm wondering about, do you feel like you really "get" the open source community, and RMS and all the fights about GNU vs GNU/Linux? Do you think you'd feel more a part of it if the GNU manifesto had less emphasis on purity and freedom, and more on sharing and having fun?
Eh... I don't think I would feel more a part of it. I like the GNU manifesto, they have a purpose, and one that my beliefs happen to coincide with. Sure we're not on the exact same page, and I'm not as rabidly about purity and freedom as RMS and other GNU advocates, but in the same way, when I share stuff, I don't want others to be able to unshare it. So it works. We need the rabid bulldogs, and tame poodles as well.
N.B.: I did not actually read the GNU Manifesto. I already agree 100% with the GPL already, even the GPLv3... so I see little point in reading a Manifesto that I might have a different take on, but whose kool-aid I have no doubt already drunk.
Nice display of bigotry. You think women aren't just as good at making environments hostile? Have you ever seen a crowd of women and their attitude to a single man? Especially if he's socially awkward or even just shy?
I don't normally experience hostility from a crowd of women, so I'm not as experienced in feeling the hostility. But I've acknowledged in posts above (if you had bothered to read through them) that indeed, women in an isolated environment can produce a pretty exclusive culture of men as well.
I find very little as pathetic as the woman that pretends to be upset that she's had to act the bitch in order to get promoted. I don't act like a bitch to get promoted so why the hell does she think it's acceptable for her?
BECAUSE WE DON'T GET PROMOTED OTHERWISE... and I wasn't particularly even talking about being promoted. When I was talking about the "upper levels of programming", I meant working at multinational computer companies, even as an individual contributor. Shit doesn't get done from women when they state their case plainly and directly, and things get done slowly when women have to use the usual "hey, why don't we do this..." approach to getting things done.
I've been called out from a boss for stating a simple business case need and directly stating what needs to be done. He called it "rude and insensitive". I immediately fired off an email to the individual apologizing profusely for being rude and insensitive, and he stated that he had no idea what I was talking about, because he didn't see anything rude or insensitive in the email at all.
When we do EXACTLY what you men do everyday, SOME men call us out as being bitches and being bossy.
And I've noticed that most of the women I worked with had a personality type where they just didn't let shit bother them, because they've had to deal with it all throughout college, and all throughout their career. It's not that being in programming requires a woman to be bitchy, or even that working in programming makes a woman bitchy, it's that THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO PUT UP WITH THE SHIT.
That's NOT what I'm saying AT ALL. Married men are just as likely to have "real lives" instead of contributing to open source projects. But there is no denying there are a lot more single techno-geek men than women.
I'm not saying that married men can't have real lives. What I'm saying is that there is a cultural allowance and in some cases expectation that men will almost straight up ignore their families and be little more than just a financial provider...
The culture is certainly turning around, and that's an awesome good thing. But some people are still raised in these odd holdout families where this cultural notion is still prevalent. And while the culture around "I never see my dad, because he's always working" has made real headway towards disappearing, it seems that the cultural differences between attitudes about single men, vs single women remain strongly in force. But then girls are raised almost as soon as they can talk about marriage, and finding prince charming, etc. It's little wonder that women have a stronger driving force towards pairing up, and getting married.
For me open source really seems to be about being a rebel and fighting for freedom, however I don't really feel like those concepts strike the same chord with women. My thought is that maybe we need to think about emphasizing the sharing and collaborative aspects of open source, but I'm sadly not that good at understanding what women want.
I never actually considered that other people would contribute to open source for different reasons than I. (Functional solipsism is actually pretty common.) It's odd that you would see yourself as a rebel fighting for freedom, I've never felt that way. I pretty much always have just felt like sharing what I did is the best way to get it noticed. It's basically like, "here, enjoy, have fun, I did this, and I think it's cool, and I want you to enjoy it!"
Der Spiegel has some video, the commentary is all in German, but at least it's better than still pictures...
An intelligent, educated woman is very unlikely to remain single for long. I suspect the root cause of the disparity between open source and proprietary participation of women on projects is due to the simple fact that once they go home from work, they have real lives to live, while many of "the guys" in the industry are techno-freaks with little or no social life and plenty of spare time to devote to OSS or Free projects.
Like myself. 47 and counting. *sigh*
But this is predominantly culture, and gender roles. Men are allowed to ignore family life for work, and in earlier times it was almost mandated that they eschew all household duties and duties raising children and just "bring home the bacon".
Indeed. Unfortunately, once a culture grows up that is very single-gender heavy, it can become hostile to anyone not conforming with the expected gender roles.
It almost becomes a feedback loop, mostly men get into a field, and pioneer it, as a result the field ends up male-dominated, as a result, females feel excluded when joining, and elect to drop out rather than swim against the current, so field ends up more male-dominated. :(
Any genetically-influenced trait is going to show a wider bell curve for males.
We don't even need genetically-influenced traits. Boys are generally raised to be individualists, to seek out, to explore, to make their own path. Women are generally raised to conform to peer pressure, and social attitudes.
Everything the grandparent post said could be accounted for by gender-role expectations, rather than genetically-influenced traits. Also, it's not really true. For example, tortoise-shell cats are exclusively female. Thus, the bell-curve of variation in tortoise-shell cats is infinitely larger in female cats than in male cats.
But like I said, the problem is cultural. We might have laws saying women are equal in the workplace, but modern families raise kids on two distinct tracks depending on their chromosome composition, and it breeds this behavior. That needs to be fixed rather than trying to do damage control after the fact.
Well spoken. If we confine our children less to cultural gender roles, then "cross gender-role" activities won't be looked down upon, and men and women will begin acting how they want to act, rather than constantly conforming to stereotypes to appease their peers.
Women are given free admission on lady's nights in order to drive up attendance from men. "Look, we have women!" is an attractive position for a bar/night club. If women had a generally difficult time of finding men willing to hit on them, then men's nights would exist as well.
"Lady's night" is borne out of bars/nightclubs realizing that men will pay more to go to a club/nightclub that has an attractive selection of women. Some even forgo this entire matter, and simply hire women to work, and potentially even take their clothes off for men.
Shall we be upset that strip clubs target men by paying women to work there, while men have to pay to be there? Or shall we recognize that strip clubs are offering a service?
In the same way, lady's night is the bar/nightclub offering men the opportunity to go to a place where they know women will be in attendance, only the bar/nightclub is getting away with not paying the women for populating their bar/nightclub.
Once nightclub I knew would routinely "give away" parties to people who sign up for their advertising. Show up 2 hours early, and get a buffet-style selection of appetizers and pre-admission drink prices all night. What do they get in exchange? They get a "seed population" at their bar/nightclub so that early comers to the club won't feel like they're sitting in a dead hang-out.
Want to get rid of "lady's night"? Change the culture so that women ask out men as much as men ask out women, and change the culture so that men aren't decisively more interested in attending co-ed parties as sausage fests. Once you've removed the incentive of guys to pay to get the opportunity to be around women, the bars/nightclubs will stop giving discounts to women to populate their bar/nightclub with women so that men are more likely to go to their bar/nightclub than the one across the street.
If there's one thing that winds me up more than men saying women can't do something as well because they're female (or women saying men can't do something because they're male), it's someone saying they can't do it because they're the wrong gender. That's fine if all you're talking about is pissing over a fence while standing straight up, but for anything else?
Indeed... I get annoyed at men who think that laundry shouldn't be their job either. Gender splits in general are bogus.
I actually dated a guy for awhile, and he did the laundry, and I did the handy-work jobs, like assembling his A/C unit, and setting up TVs the cable, etc. Why? In his words, because I'm smarter than him. v_v
Whatever, at least we weren't dividing jobs based on gender. ;)
Very true. Institutionalization of gender into a field is harmful for both sexes in general. I know here in the US, nursing is also female over-represented. People look down upon male nurses and consider them to be "pussies" or other such feminizing word that men choose to express "lack of masculinity" against each other.
I'm sorry for the institutional pressures that you felt going through nursing training and such, and imagine that you got that just from studying math and science. :(
Single-gender professions tend to get so worked up in expectations of that single-gender and cultures that reinforce those conditions, it makes it really hard to break the cycle and integrate anything. :(
Oh, the "hostile environment" idea. Any environment where the boys grossly outnumber the girls is automatically hostile to the girls. I should think however, that nerdy though we are, we are a tiny bit more respectful than other boys clubs such as the military, and the average sport. But maybe we are worse because we're so starved for a bit of affection. And we certainly don't have neat uniforms.
I've actually related the attitudes of the men I worked with to stereotypical football player behavior. Any group of isolated men will develop a culture that is exclusive of women, primarily because the environment was already exclusive of women.
So, whether it's a jock locker room, or a F/OSS irc chat channel, or mailing list, women typically feel left out and excluded, because the men have already established a culture that excludes them. Not necessarily because they want to exclude women, but because there was no selective pressure to produce an inclusive culture.
But gentlemen's clubs are not allowed any more. They've been struck down legally. You are, however, allowed to have women's only clubs.
I think you've missed something, but private clubs are allowed by law to use whatever admission criteria that they want.
In fact, Hooters is allowed to employ an all-female staff, because they are hiring "entertainers" not service personnel, and thus are allowed to type-cast their roles.
You see, a theater company can blatantly refuse to accept a woman for the role of Hamlet all they want, because Hamlet is a man. And any woman attempting to get a court to force a production to allow her to be Hamlet is doomed to failure.
Pretty much this. Males seem to excel at making an environment hostile towards women, which ok in the locker room, gentleman's clubs, and other places where men have every right to be alone.
Unfortunately, this often ends up happening where men don't have a right to be alone, but just are alone for any of the myriad of reasons that it happens. Suddenly, programming is a boy's club, or any other particular profession or hobby. Now, women have to overcome not only "crossing gender roles" in order to participate, but they find themselves in a hostile environment where men seem to expect that no women are allowed.
And then, heaven forbid any woman comment that such an attitude is sexist, lest they be roundly shouted out with anti-PC arguments, when asking for people to be PC is different from asking people to not be sexist.
Is it any wonder that the only women who make it into the highest levels of programming have learned to cope by pretending to be a guy, or acting the bitch just to get their way? :(
Maybe if there were some jobs in this country people wouldn't have to steal copper. It didn't happen NEARLY as much a few years back and I doubt the number of meth heads has increased that much since then. 8.5% unemployment is bullshit, it's more like 15% if you count everyone, not just the people currently getting benefits. Also, why not do something about the places that buy the scrap metal?
Correlation != causation.
It could just be that criminals that have always been stealing stuff, have now found that stealing copper cables involves far less risk, and better rewards than stealing from people's houses.
There's far more statistics to be done to understand any of the underlying causes... but you know, blindly blaming it on a bad economy works just as well.
Competition Act. Section 21: Restrictive Trade Practices. Section 55: False or Misleading Representations (Specifically 55.a.v.) And Section 56 & 57: Unconscionable Conduct. (Probably 56.2.d, and Section 57.1 in general.) And the Trade Descriptions Act. Specifically sections regarding "Prohibition of False Trade Description". And of course the Defamation act, because of the false claims about Mocality's business practices.
And possibly the Witchcraft Act. Because computers, you know.
Thanks. :) I never denied that it wasn't illegal, was just calling on people to avoid speculation.
The IPs were registered to Google, Mountain View, CA, so its very much in the US jurisdiction.
Do you listen to how stupid you sound?