Don't go please, I really appreciate your comments and submissions, although I'm really not active here. You're one of the few users that I always read comments from, raganwald also is one.
There's always a histrionic minority that read about some research and always come here bragging about it (ie, mainly about women, blacks or whatever else), this type of people, although mainly libertarian have a real dislike for the individual that is telling of their real beliefs.
The problem here is not that the bot is annoying, the problem is that the bot is sexist. Responding to sexist remarks with something that signifies that those remarks are sexist is not the same as making sexist remarks. Whether or not those two bots are annoying is a different issue that is now used as an excuse to rationalize hating on the second bot.
How can you be so blind to that? I’m sitting here in disbelief.
It's not that I'm blind to that, it's that I don't consider it a good enough excuse to go around pestering one's co-workers.
The other thing is that there are more than two parties in this situation. There is the guy who put the TWSS bot in place, and there's this person, who put the anti-TWSS bot in place.
Let's assume you're the third person (or fourth, fifth, whatever). You didn't put any bots in place. You're just going to work every day trying to turn your startup into a profit center. You're head's down, nose to the grindstone, and you wouldlike to have used the IRC channel as an effective means of communicating with your co-workers so that you can be efficient.
Sure, you maybe considered the TWSS bot a distraction. Now, you've got an IRC channel that's half as useful as it was.
You didn't do anything wrong, but now you're suffering the effects of pranks from both parties.
If I were the third, fourth, or fifth person, I wouldn't want my co-workers to feel like they were working in a place where they weren't welcome. Because it's by having great co-workers and a collegial environment that I expect to make my startup work.
Also, you're putting your thumb heavily on the scale here. Adding a bot that responds to "TWSS" jokes hardly makes an IRC channel "half as useful as it was".
Apple doesn‘t have a significant revenue stream from existing devices. Why does everyone think they are making lots of money by selling apps and media? They do not.
I think the biggest reason Apple still supports old hardware is they're still selling it (see: iPhone 3GS and now iPad 2).
That being said, it is interesting how Apple's support of old hardware is the dual of Google's.
Google does a bad job of getting OS updates to older hardware, but they do an impressively good job of supporting their applications on older hardware and OSes. Outside of the deliberate exception of the Chrome Beta, I can't think of an official Google app for Android that doesn't support at least Froyo and many go back further. My G1 (running Donut) was still getting Google app updates for a good chunk of last year. I happen to know that because I picked it up for a memorial tweet on the G1's third anniversary and was surprised with all the update notifications I got.
Meanwhile, Apple is very good about getting OS updates to older devices. But when you look at their app support, it doesn't look nearly so good. Everyone talks about Siri, but did you also know that the original iPad doesn't support iPhoto or iMovie (see: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/9/2856499/iphoto-ios-app-ipad... )? iMovie is particularly damning because the first iOS version (for the iPhone 4) was released less than 3 months after the original iPad.
And note that while older Apple devices nearly all get the new version number, sometimes that's about all they get in the way of features from the upgrade.
I understand why Android geeks are desperate to have the very latest OS version running on their device (as a weird point of OCD-geek pride). I have no idea why Apple fans should care so much about what version number Android phones have when Google is near constantly updating the software that runs of them. Seems to run counter to their stance on the features vs. specs debate on hardware, where user experience is more important than the number attached to something.
"Normal people" on the other hand, clearly don't give a damn, if they are even aware of this "issue", and have no reason to.
I don't think it's the main reason either. The reason is customer loyalty. But I believe that media and app sales are more important than you think, because it's the entire integrated ecosystem that keeps people inside Apple's fold. Secondly, Apple is investing huge amounts into expanding their software/services/media offering, so current sales might not be telling you very much about their motivation.
my bet is that they locked themselves in because of some contract with corporation (trying to beat RIM at some time) or government.
And those contracts are still giving them money, otherwise they wouldn't think twice about breaking it. All apple actions can be directly translated to immediate profit goal.
That must be why Apple is still providing cheap OS upgrades for my four year old Mac. Or maybe they're smart enough to realize that I might not buy their products again if they were obsoleted as soon as possible?
Is it really the case that someone has to pay child support for a child that is proven to be not theirs?
I did some superficial googling and found the case of one man who has to pay child support even though a DNA test proved he is not the father, because he missed all the deadlines for challenging the ruling. That seems like an unfortunate edge case to me, not some general pattern one has to be worried about.
I think you might be mistaken about the legal situation, but I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.
It depends on your definition of "not theirs". The law doesn't look at biology only. (Same gender parents, adoptive parents, grandparents as primary caregivers, etc).
If you accept a child as your own for several years, the law is likely to look at them as yours regardless of DNA. I think that in the majority of cases, this probably works out for the better.
When a child who has all the toys is told they have to share, some children will throw a hissy fit. This is an apt metaphore for a "men's rights" movement which rares it's head when people talking about giving women as much power as men.
Men are as likely to be raped, but their (prison) rapes are considered funny in our society, whereas female rapes are considered a grave crime. Men are generally considered more disposable in dangerous situations ("let the women and children go"). Stereotypes and gender roles regarding men are much more rigid, and challenging them has much less cultural buy-in than challenging gender roles with women. Men are much more likely to be assaulted. I told my very feminist sister a story about a guy who punched the guy his girlfriend was cheating on him with. At first she misheard me and thought he punched the girl, which was considered horrible. When I clarified that it was the guy, she immediately made a comment that it was less serious. She has internalized the sexism that it's much less serious to assault a male.
I could go on and on, but you're so brainwashed by the feminist agenda that you have internalized it and don't even see the blatant sexism in our society. It's so ironic that so many feminists/liberals are so guilty of what they accuse others of - being unaware of their own prejudices.
Yes you're right. These are all terrible things. It's terrible that rape of men is used as jokes, or even by police as threat to encourage people to confess.
There are a lot of strict gender roles for men, men are laughed at if they want to wear a dress, but a woman can wear a trousers without any problem. Being the receptive sexual partner is viewed as OK for women, but shameful or wrong for men. It's not fair and it's not right.
There are a lot of issues at play. There are a lot of things wrong with gender, and there's people who've been fighting for gender equality for a long time. We're all on the same side here.
I agree with everything you said but the liberals part...
I think we should be careful to assume that all liberals are feminists. This can turn off the liberals that have noticed the misandry in feminism and are trying to learn more.
The primary people fighting prison rape is feminists (and both prison rape and rape of drunk girls are treated as jokes in our culture). The primary people fighting stereotypes and gender roles, supporting stay-at-home fathers, supporting the importance of gender-flexibility for men, are feminists. The primary people fighting men's violence directed at each other are feminists. Feminists fought the draft and continue to protest wars around the world.
Your examples are feminist. You are a feminist, whether you choose to use the label or not. The only question is whether you realize this is a loose-loose situation and support other feminists as well as those focusing on your issues.
Men are as likely to be raped, but their (prison) rapes are considered funny in our society, whereas female rapes are considered a grave crime. Men are generally considered more disposable in dangerous situations ("let the women and children go"). Stereotypes and gender roles regarding men are much more rigid, and challenging them has much less cultural buy-in than challenging gender roles with women. Men are much more likely to be assaulted. I told my very feminist sister a story about a guy who punched another guy that his girlfriend was cheating on him with. At first she misheard me and thought he punched the girl, which was considered horrible. When I clarified that it was the guy he hit, she immediately made a comment that indicating that it was less serious. She has internalized the sexism that it's much less serious to assault a male.
I could go on and on, but you're so brainwashed by a movement that has overall very good intentions (empower women in a society that disempowers them) that you have internalized it and don't even see the blatant sexism on the other side of the coin. Even this piece contains so many generalizations about men, geeks, tech workplaces that are blatantly unfair.
It's so ironic that so many feminists/liberals are so guilty of what they accuse others of - being unaware of their own prejudices.
What's your source for the first claim? I've never heard it before - Wikipedia cites[0] a 2006 investigation that found 2,205 allegations, 262 of which were substantiated. The FBI collected[1] 92,455 allegations of forcible rape - i.e. excluding other kinds of rape - in the same year - even if just 1% of those were proved, that's still nearly an order of magnitude disparity.
(Please don't take my comment as dismissing your other points - sexism hurts men and women. I'm just curious about that specific claim.)
As far as I know Apple has yet to use its ability to pull apps from devices. Apple said it only will do it when malware appears and that has not yet happened.
Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.
Judgment call or not there have been witch hunts before and many where sanctioned by authority such as judges, we are talking about policing opinions, it is a slipper slope because the entire idea is rooted in control as such more and more control will be exerted. As I mentioned below even the judges will be influenced by the idea that criminalizing opinions is OK, which will make the ever slighter infraction more and more offensive.
To a certain extent I do feel that it crosse a line in that it makes speech itself criminal. All US speech laws (except for obscenity, but I don't agree that obscenity should be illegal) deal with an inseparable conjunction of speech and action/effect. "Fighting words" and "incitement to riot" both cause an immediate act of physical harm. Defamation requires a demonstration of harm and even then is very plaintiff-unfriendly.
In the US you can never be jailed just for speech, you must be jailed for speech in conjunction with physical harm or targeted harassment.
Yes in the US, the legal system has in the past been innocent until proven guilty, this thinking has at least in spirit extended to innocent of a crime, until action has taken place, this has changed slowly over the years the first to my knowledge was conspiracy to commit murder (in the 1870's IIRC), then others followed like general conspiracy and solicitation etc. But for the most part up until the recent past (1970's on) minor issues required action before you where guilty of a crime. Public speech related offenses are still viewed in the same light, saying we should tear this place down was not inciting a riot until it incited a riot at which point the act of saying it became a criminal offense. So criminalization was retroactively applied to the speech after it created criminal action.
Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†.
I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense.
Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected.
The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.
(It's obviously not ironic if he doesn’t call for or wants to use legal protections. Being outraged about something doesn't mean you want to make it illegal. That’s an important difference and I'm not sure why so many people are ignorant of that difference.)
It is worth noting that he repeatedly used words like "stealing" and "theft" while outraged and those words have strong legal connotations. That at least suggests (but, to be clear, does not prove) that he thinks there should be some sort of relevant legal protection.
Stealing and theft is often used to refer to things that are not stealing or theft in the legal sense. This is especially prevalent when talking about ideas and designs. The speakers usually do not want laws to change, they don't want to sue.
You cannot take the use of such words alone as an indication. That just makes no sense. Stealing and theft aren’t legal terms, not first and foremost. They only happen to also refer to legal concepts.
But wouldn't it allow the kid to be more imaginative? Instead of building a calculator inside of a game, perhaps he could make his own game? Instead of building something that's already defined, wouldn't he have more opportunities to be creative?
