Because men have no control or stake in parenting. No men are involved anywhere in the fashion industry, or the marketing apparatus attached to it. And because women can't be the instruments of societal pressures and contribute to their own oppression. Oh, wait.
Either way, it's not oppression! People are free to wear whatever they want and you're trying to argue that that's oppression and not freedom.
This is like saying that, in the Victorian era, the fact that more children were chained to desks than adults is because the children tended to negotiate less.
No, it's not at all like that.
Your "Women are categorically less likely to negotiate" thing is unsupported,
I agree; which is why I said it would be interesting to study it. You have problems with reading comprehension, don't you?
And given that in our current society, management does much more to set wages than the employee does, even in situations where negotiation is part of the deal, your argument just doesn't hold water.
There's more than one "management." If the company you're working for refuses to pay you what you think you're worth, you move to another company and you get a totally brand-new "management" to boot. Again, this is freedom we're talking about, not oppression.
What would you suggest to "fix" this situation? Require employers to follow specific pay scales for every single position? Because that certainly sounds like oppression to me.
What does it indicate, that jobs with any power attached to them are overwhelmingly male-dominated?
So are jobs attached to the NFL. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether women are oppressed or not.
We haven't conquered sexism. But people who have a vested interest in inequality have worked hard to spread the idea that we have.
Well, it could be in the increasing sexualization of female children and their clothes.
That's not oppression. And, frankly, women are behind that trend. It's not men dressing up their daughters like that. (That assumes it even is a trend; I'd like to see some hard data before I consider it anything but anecdotal.)
Or the way that females make less money in the same positions across the board.
That's not oppression. They have the exact same ability to negotiate for their salary as their male co-workers. Now it might be an interesting study to determine why women don't do this as often, or if they do why they are less successful at it, but that has nothing to do with oppression.
If you're saying that there's no law requiring companies to pay the same amount across-the-board for the same position, well, you're correct; but it doesn't have any gender component to it. I can guarantee I'm doing the same job as somebody making twice as much as me, and probably somebody making half as much as me.
How about the massive gap in numbers in government, as well as the huge gap between males and females in CEO positions?
What about it? It doesn't indicate oppression.
Just because we're not as bad as horrible countries doesn't mean we've fixed all the problems.
I agree that we still have a ton of problems. But we have fixed the problems related to oppressing women.
I agree: Some of the most innovative and popular programs ever were written by people who, frankly, had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Shawn Fanning, when he wrote Napster, didn't even freakin' know that the OS had tab widgets. (He used buttons as tabs.) Netscape dominated the web, while being insanely bloated and crashing every 15 minutes.
Programming ability seems to have very little correlation with "making products people love." Now, that said, if you're Google, and you're entering an established market, then the CS class might help you do the established task better.
(I'm not counting terrible programs that still exist because of a crazy mix of legacy and good marketing, like PeopleSoft or Lotus Notes.)
Women are oppressed? Oh, you must be posting from Iran...
Here in the US, you'd have to give me a really, really convincing argument that women are oppressed in any way. They can't vote? No, they can. Drive? They can do that too. Get high-paying jobs? No problems. Be CEO? Go right ahead. Vice-Presidential candidate? Sure. Secretary of State? Doing a good job of it.
Where's the oppression again? I'm just not seeing it.
If you watch a movie at your friend's house and decide you want it, you can't just take it from him and keep it until the end of time. Unless you're an asshole. Ditto with the library.
In the pirating case, however, there's no practical difference between pirating the product and owning your own copy. So the incentive to buy your own isn't there in the same way it is with the "book" and "movie" examples above.
What it really comes down to is that software pirates delude themselves to make their illegal activities "ok", and one of the most popular delusions is, "I was just trying it out, I wasn't going ot keep it." Sure, and four years later you're *still* "trying it out". Complete crap.
Maybe you overestimate how much the platform matters. In the server market, virtually everything runs on virtually everything. (With exceptions for legacy OSes like OS/400). What does it matter if I have the "best" hardware platform when I can run the exact same software on "not-as-good" platforms, and buy twice as many boxes?
Yeah, but since OO is open source, why would anybody download the version with adds? I mean they're going to have to make some huge improvements on the "ad-supported" version to make it better than the open source version, and there's nothing to stop the open source version from catching up in a couple months anyway.
Forget it, this is one of those Slashdot bullshit claims you see around here all the time which never has any kind of supporting evidence. One of the other ones is how DRM in Vista "slows down your computer."
It's trouble enough to get vendors to support their products *at purchase*, and yet people have problems believing that they don't support products for new OSes that come out after the purchase? I have no idea where people get that idea.
I bought a USB wifi card that didn't support Vista out-of-the-box... a WEEK ago. From an extremely well-known home network company with a good reputation. People really have problems believing this company, which barely supports an OS that's been out OVER A YEAR, wouldn't write drivers for a future OS? Those people are delusional.
The problem with Microsoft is their habit of releasing bananaware: they ship green software that matures at the customers, at the expense of the customer of course who essentially pays to become a beta-tester for Microsoft.
I find it funny that that's a "problem" with Microsoft, and a stated goal of open source software. (Release early, release often.) Frankly, I'd be ecstatic if some open source projects followed Microsoft's example and removed the show-stopping bugs before release.
I think it's either Sahara or Southland Tales. Did it have The Rock kill his own clone from the future? If so, then it's Southland Tales. If it had a Civil War ironclad buried in the desert, it's Sahara.
Ugh. People who take down the existing page because they're redesigning the site.
Generally you only see this mistake from 14-year-old "web developers" whose qualifications all come from adding animated GIF background images to MySpace profiles. Of course, these "web developers" always severely doubt the amount of time it'll take to finish the page and put it back online, so "check back in a couple days" typically turns into months, years, or "kiss that page goodbye, sucker!" Saying the term "staging server" to these type of people will usually garner the response: "caging what? I was too busy picking my nose to listen."
If you're lucky, it was actually a hostile admin pulling down the site and holding it hostage to the project for (pinky-in-mouth) one-hundred-billion-dollars! and they didn't just recruit an incompetent idiot to run it. In the former case, at least the pages will come back once the FBI breaks down his door and holds an assault rifle to his head, in the latter case they'll be "under construction" until the end of time.
So, uh, yeah. The question here isn't "how should open source projects support users?" But more along the lines of, "should open source projects do intensely retarded things with their websites?" (The answer is no.)
I reproduce this over and over and over with customers. They have a 2 year old laptop that came with XP and the "upgrade to vista" we upgrade it and the COMPUTER IS IN FACT SLOWER.
Oh, well, if you type it in all-caps, it must be the case!
Why do you think the boards out there were flooded with these reports over the past couple of years.
Because Slashdotters, most of whom haven't used any version of Windows since '98, continually post "Vista is so godawful!" without mentioning that they've never actually tried Vista.
I'm not saying that's the case for you, I'm just saying that there's so much noise from anti-Microsoft wags that it's really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Most laptops have crap level video cards so that vista ran like a dog.
What about when you turn off Aero? You did try that, right?
Every single Lattitude from 2006/2007 we did a vista reinstall to was in fact very slow compared to the XP install.
And they were all similar models from the same vendor... how do you know it wasn't just a single bad driver causing all your problems? Hardware makers have been complete and utter shit adapting for Vista, I'd be a lot more likely to blame that than anything Microsoft did.
The best concept (and worst execution) has to go to "Parts: the Clonus Horror."
The modern action flick "The Island" is based on the same premise, in fact the writer of Parts even sued IIRC. It's kind of a shame that the movie *could* be great, bringing up philosophical and ethical issues, yet one production of it was all-around terrible, and the other just focused on explosions and action scenes.
My favorite "they just didn't care" moment was in Cave Dwellers, when Tom Servo was re-playing the film at the end of the movie. In one scene, there's a producer or something in the middle of a shot of cavemen, and Tom Servo says something like this:
"In the caveman fight scene, this caveman in the back is wearing fashionable sunglasses! Who's that in the Foster-Grants? OGG!"
But yes, Attack of The The Eye Creatures was awesome. The other movie with a typo was either "The Head that Wouldn't Die" or "The Brain that Wouldn't Die"... the end credits had a different title than the beginning credits.
More seriously, Prince of Space and Invasion of the Neptune Men are my favorite episodes, I think. What were the Japanese thinking, showing those to kids?
BTW, I've tried researching it (lazily, on the Internet), but does anybody have *any* information on the Hitler Building? What the heck was the deal? Why was it still Hitler-themed years after the war ended? You'd think the American GIs would pull that that facade.
There are apparently 2000 developers working on this project - and they are committing the cardinal sin of software development, they are letting the marketing department develop their systems.
Do you have any actual evidence of this, know something we don't? Isn't it just as likely that they're following the advice of usability experts, and marketing is just playing off the same theme?
Besides, they're letting marketing determine the features of the release, and the main feature they want is "make the UI faster"... how is that a bad thing?
How do you get started at that, BTW? I'd love for random companies to send me swag to review, but I'm too cheap to buy things to review myself.:) Haha.
Is there some kind of International Registry of Reviewers with No Ethics?
Slashdot Mirror
Because men have no control or stake in parenting. No men are involved anywhere in the fashion industry, or the marketing apparatus attached to it. And because women can't be the instruments of societal pressures and contribute to their own oppression. Oh, wait.
Either way, it's not oppression! People are free to wear whatever they want and you're trying to argue that that's oppression and not freedom.
This is like saying that, in the Victorian era, the fact that more children were chained to desks than adults is because the children tended to negotiate less.
No, it's not at all like that.
Your "Women are categorically less likely to negotiate" thing is unsupported,
I agree; which is why I said it would be interesting to study it. You have problems with reading comprehension, don't you?
And given that in our current society, management does much more to set wages than the employee does, even in situations where negotiation is part of the deal, your argument just doesn't hold water.
There's more than one "management." If the company you're working for refuses to pay you what you think you're worth, you move to another company and you get a totally brand-new "management" to boot. Again, this is freedom we're talking about, not oppression.
What would you suggest to "fix" this situation? Require employers to follow specific pay scales for every single position? Because that certainly sounds like oppression to me.
What does it indicate, that jobs with any power attached to them are overwhelmingly male-dominated?
So are jobs attached to the NFL. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether women are oppressed or not.
We haven't conquered sexism. But people who have a vested interest in inequality have worked hard to spread the idea that we have.
What's your vested interest in saying we haven't?
Well, it could be in the increasing sexualization of female children and their clothes.
That's not oppression. And, frankly, women are behind that trend. It's not men dressing up their daughters like that. (That assumes it even is a trend; I'd like to see some hard data before I consider it anything but anecdotal.)
Or the way that females make less money in the same positions across the board.
That's not oppression. They have the exact same ability to negotiate for their salary as their male co-workers. Now it might be an interesting study to determine why women don't do this as often, or if they do why they are less successful at it, but that has nothing to do with oppression.
If you're saying that there's no law requiring companies to pay the same amount across-the-board for the same position, well, you're correct; but it doesn't have any gender component to it. I can guarantee I'm doing the same job as somebody making twice as much as me, and probably somebody making half as much as me.
How about the massive gap in numbers in government, as well as the huge gap between males and females in CEO positions?
What about it? It doesn't indicate oppression.
Just because we're not as bad as horrible countries doesn't mean we've fixed all the problems.
I agree that we still have a ton of problems. But we have fixed the problems related to oppressing women.
I agree: Some of the most innovative and popular programs ever were written by people who, frankly, had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Shawn Fanning, when he wrote Napster, didn't even freakin' know that the OS had tab widgets. (He used buttons as tabs.) Netscape dominated the web, while being insanely bloated and crashing every 15 minutes.
Programming ability seems to have very little correlation with "making products people love." Now, that said, if you're Google, and you're entering an established market, then the CS class might help you do the established task better.
(I'm not counting terrible programs that still exist because of a crazy mix of legacy and good marketing, like PeopleSoft or Lotus Notes.)
Women are oppressed? Oh, you must be posting from Iran...
Here in the US, you'd have to give me a really, really convincing argument that women are oppressed in any way. They can't vote? No, they can. Drive? They can do that too. Get high-paying jobs? No problems. Be CEO? Go right ahead. Vice-Presidential candidate? Sure. Secretary of State? Doing a good job of it.
Where's the oppression again? I'm just not seeing it.
Yes, but your example is bad also.
If you watch a movie at your friend's house and decide you want it, you can't just take it from him and keep it until the end of time. Unless you're an asshole. Ditto with the library.
In the pirating case, however, there's no practical difference between pirating the product and owning your own copy. So the incentive to buy your own isn't there in the same way it is with the "book" and "movie" examples above.
What it really comes down to is that software pirates delude themselves to make their illegal activities "ok", and one of the most popular delusions is, "I was just trying it out, I wasn't going ot keep it." Sure, and four years later you're *still* "trying it out". Complete crap.
Why is that relevant, again?
Whether he played it for an hour, or five hundred hours, he still pirated it. I don't get the point you're trying to make.
Maybe you overestimate how much the platform matters. In the server market, virtually everything runs on virtually everything. (With exceptions for legacy OSes like OS/400). What does it matter if I have the "best" hardware platform when I can run the exact same software on "not-as-good" platforms, and buy twice as many boxes?
Yeah, but since OO is open source, why would anybody download the version with adds? I mean they're going to have to make some huge improvements on the "ad-supported" version to make it better than the open source version, and there's nothing to stop the open source version from catching up in a couple months anyway.
I don't get it.
Forget it, this is one of those Slashdot bullshit claims you see around here all the time which never has any kind of supporting evidence. One of the other ones is how DRM in Vista "slows down your computer."
It's trouble enough to get vendors to support their products *at purchase*, and yet people have problems believing that they don't support products for new OSes that come out after the purchase? I have no idea where people get that idea.
I bought a USB wifi card that didn't support Vista out-of-the-box... a WEEK ago. From an extremely well-known home network company with a good reputation. People really have problems believing this company, which barely supports an OS that's been out OVER A YEAR, wouldn't write drivers for a future OS? Those people are delusional.
The problem with Microsoft is their habit of releasing bananaware: they ship green software that matures at the customers, at the expense of the customer of course who essentially pays to become a beta-tester for Microsoft.
I find it funny that that's a "problem" with Microsoft, and a stated goal of open source software. (Release early, release often.) Frankly, I'd be ecstatic if some open source projects followed Microsoft's example and removed the show-stopping bugs before release.
I used to help out via entering bug reports for bugs I found. Invariably, the bug report would either get a gruff, unhelpful reply (like: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1865630&group_id=95717&atid=612382 ), or it would simply be ignored for months and months until the project either closed it due to inactivity or switching bug trackers (like this ex-bug: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1609779&group_id=93438&atid=604306 ).
I don't bother anymore.
I think it's either Sahara or Southland Tales. Did it have The Rock kill his own clone from the future? If so, then it's Southland Tales. If it had a Civil War ironclad buried in the desert, it's Sahara.
Ugh. People who take down the existing page because they're redesigning the site.
Generally you only see this mistake from 14-year-old "web developers" whose qualifications all come from adding animated GIF background images to MySpace profiles. Of course, these "web developers" always severely doubt the amount of time it'll take to finish the page and put it back online, so "check back in a couple days" typically turns into months, years, or "kiss that page goodbye, sucker!" Saying the term "staging server" to these type of people will usually garner the response: "caging what? I was too busy picking my nose to listen."
If you're lucky, it was actually a hostile admin pulling down the site and holding it hostage to the project for (pinky-in-mouth) one-hundred-billion-dollars! and they didn't just recruit an incompetent idiot to run it. In the former case, at least the pages will come back once the FBI breaks down his door and holds an assault rifle to his head, in the latter case they'll be "under construction" until the end of time.
So, uh, yeah. The question here isn't "how should open source projects support users?" But more along the lines of, "should open source projects do intensely retarded things with their websites?" (The answer is no.)
Who is "we"?
I have an iPhone. :)
I reproduce this over and over and over with customers. They have a 2 year old laptop that came with XP and the "upgrade to vista" we upgrade it and the COMPUTER IS IN FACT SLOWER.
Oh, well, if you type it in all-caps, it must be the case!
Why do you think the boards out there were flooded with these reports over the past couple of years.
Because Slashdotters, most of whom haven't used any version of Windows since '98, continually post "Vista is so godawful!" without mentioning that they've never actually tried Vista.
I'm not saying that's the case for you, I'm just saying that there's so much noise from anti-Microsoft wags that it's really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Most laptops have crap level video cards so that vista ran like a dog.
What about when you turn off Aero? You did try that, right?
Every single Lattitude from 2006/2007 we did a vista reinstall to was in fact very slow compared to the XP install.
And they were all similar models from the same vendor... how do you know it wasn't just a single bad driver causing all your problems? Hardware makers have been complete and utter shit adapting for Vista, I'd be a lot more likely to blame that than anything Microsoft did.
The best concept (and worst execution) has to go to "Parts: the Clonus Horror."
The modern action flick "The Island" is based on the same premise, in fact the writer of Parts even sued IIRC. It's kind of a shame that the movie *could* be great, bringing up philosophical and ethical issues, yet one production of it was all-around terrible, and the other just focused on explosions and action scenes.
My favorite "they just didn't care" moment was in Cave Dwellers, when Tom Servo was re-playing the film at the end of the movie. In one scene, there's a producer or something in the middle of a shot of cavemen, and Tom Servo says something like this:
"In the caveman fight scene, this caveman in the back is wearing fashionable sunglasses! Who's that in the Foster-Grants? OGG!"
But yes, Attack of The The Eye Creatures was awesome. The other movie with a typo was either "The Head that Wouldn't Die" or "The Brain that Wouldn't Die"... the end credits had a different title than the beginning credits.
And his stalwart companion, Duke of Puddles!
More seriously, Prince of Space and Invasion of the Neptune Men are my favorite episodes, I think. What were the Japanese thinking, showing those to kids?
BTW, I've tried researching it (lazily, on the Internet), but does anybody have *any* information on the Hitler Building? What the heck was the deal? Why was it still Hitler-themed years after the war ended? You'd think the American GIs would pull that that facade.
It's just you.
It takes a lot of ego to assume that because you see fewer office docs, the entire world does too.
Well, that's all good, but it still would have been nice to tell customers which OSes are affected. I don't think that's asking too much.
Would be nice if their website at least told which OSes were affected...
Considering my Vista is still running, I'll just assume "XP only" but who knows, it might hit me tomorrow. :(
There are apparently 2000 developers working on this project - and they are committing the cardinal sin of software development, they are letting the marketing department develop their systems.
Do you have any actual evidence of this, know something we don't? Isn't it just as likely that they're following the advice of usability experts, and marketing is just playing off the same theme?
Besides, they're letting marketing determine the features of the release, and the main feature they want is "make the UI faster"... how is that a bad thing?
How do you get started at that, BTW? I'd love for random companies to send me swag to review, but I'm too cheap to buy things to review myself. :) Haha.
Is there some kind of International Registry of Reviewers with No Ethics?
Uh... which one was Amtrak promising to deliver?
I'm sure that ad made people cheerful as they were leaving the station in their falling-apart circa 1965 passenger car 45 minutes late.