Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Why get married? (Score 1) 447

In a successful marriage, you have gained someone who would do anything for you, much like your parents. Unlike parents, though, a spouse can treat you as a peer and shouldn't grow old before you. Your #2 arises because children take a LOT of constant effort, and it just happens that two adult peers living for each other are one of the few known social structures that can focus that much energy on anything. But imagine what such a couple can accomplish without children to absorb the effort!

Comment Re:Questiona re a bit sexists (Score 1) 447

People in arranged marriages don't expect their spouses to be their best friends forever. Americans looking the The One do. I do value the freedom to choose my own spouse, but there are definitely advantages for most people either way. I just hope that we can learn what those advantages are and learn to apply them to our chosen marriages.

Comment Re:Questiona re a bit sexists (Score 1) 447

Also wealthier people are probably more narcissistic and (may) face fewer financial consequences for giving up. A poor match isn't about people's interests not lining up. It's about people's emotional responsiveness not working together. It's about people who can't learn to love each other as family, rather than just as lovers.

Comment Re:Questiona re a bit sexists (Score 1) 447

"Divorce isn't the death of a marriage. Divorce is the funeral"

Not everybody really understands or believes this. People with flimsy marriages, perhaps based on looks or wealth or marred with narcissism, may resort to divorce before the marriage is really "dead". Marriage is about truly loving another human being despite all their flaws and weaknesses, in fact vying to help them overcome those flaws and weaknesses for their own sake. Even if it means being their crutch, or them being yours. It is good to have some stigma of divorce (but still allow it) because some people need the extra push to see their spouse as someone they've made a commitment to love. Some people will learn to live up to that commitment as they're being forced to. Not everyone, unfortunately, but there should be at least enough stigma to help those it will while still allowing the "funeral" to happen for those that have figured out they are just incapable of loving each other like that.

"Love is watching someone die. So who's gonna watch you die?"

Comment Re:Why anyway? (Score 1) 447

Even a number of non-human animals practice marriage, though for obvious reasons that doesn't include a big "wedding". Bald eagles, gibbons, swans, wolves, and most famously turtle doves all form long-lasting, often life-long monogamous relationships. Something about the concept is embedded in our animal instincts to varying degrees.

Comment Re:Or, just don't get married. (Score 5, Insightful) 447

Up until the last century, it was a lifestyle that had one person at home, raising the kids, and the other one out making money for them. And those were the same people who caused the children to come into existence.

That's actually bullshit. The "woman stays home" model may have been an ideal for a long time (though certainly not the entirety of human existence), but that doesn't mean most people could afford it. Aristocrats might do so, but then aristocrats don't really need either partner to work and the wife was more likely to have servants care for house and children to make room for a busy social calendar. Which leaves us with the middle class, which until the 1950s wasn't very large in America. If you marry a doctor or a lawyer, you could stay home (and your egotistical husband probably would rather you didn't threaten to be successful like the big important doctor). Otherwise...well, you found other ways to make a living.

The poor unwashed masses don't have the luxury of consistent income able to support an entire family from just one job. They have always had every possible member of the family working, especially in the past when children older than toddlers were given a lot more freedom with much less supervision. Husband working a construction job, wife working in a textile mill, and if you're really lucky the two could do both at the same time for years. If you aren't, well then somebody will be home raising chickens or something and probably engaging in a local barter market.

Not every "tradition" actually goes back any farther than your grandparents. Know your history. Not just the "great events" version of history either; know how people lived and the kind of economic opportunities they had. There's a lot more interesting about the 1800s than all the wars. Don't let some 1950s sexist reaction after WW2 overwrite the reality of your ancestors.

Comment Re:like the frenchie charged with "hacking by goog (Score 1) 728

Social engineering a password (usually) involves no tech wizardry. It is a skill that anybody can pick up that doesn't look like a headless guy in a suit...hunched over a computer screen typing code. The social engineer is the guy you just assumed was a building janitor. Calling every computer-related crime "hacking" brings along a lot of baggage that isn't always appropriate to figuring out how to catch criminals and prevent the crimes.

Comment Re:like the frenchie charged with "hacking by goog (Score 1) 728

I, like you (somewhat), am peeved by the overuse of the word "hack". Asking AT&T for email addresses and getting them is not a hack any more than stealing someone's password from their wallet and using it to deface their website. Which also isn't "hacking", for those too dense to realize that stealing the keys isn't "hacking" just because it involves a computer.

I do think that the "unlocked door" idea is valid, though. If it were a personal home, then it ought to be unlawful to go up to that home (or personal computer) looking for unlocked doors. But that doesn't mean AT&T should be able to claim that defense, because it wasn't a personal home. It was their public storefront. If they posted a list of customer credit card numbers on a bulletin board visible through a window, it would be criminal negligence on their part. Reading those numbers isn't a crime, although using them for a crime would be...a crime. Even if it was behind a metaphorical door, an unlocked door in a storefront leads to a public space by default, where the same rules should apply.

Metaphors can be useful as long as they are a bit more accurate. Let's not conflate the difference between a private and a presumed public space.

Comment Re:she handled it incorrectly (Score 1) 728

Step 1 is woefully incomplete. You don't just "buy a gun". You also have to learn how and when to use it. And be aware of places and situations where you really don't want a gun around anyway (which includes most homes, especially with children or other irresponsible or immature housemates). An untrained person is not safer with a gun. She's actually in more danger from improper use, theft, and accidents.

Not saying anything right now about your "sexist bullshit" comment (besides that I disagree). But your right to have and use a gun is like you right to have and use a car. You've got to learn to drive first or else you're just a danger to yourself and others.

Comment Always the legal solutions first (Score 3, Insightful) 728

Why does it seem that the first response to these kinds of problems is always legal? To sue someone? Is it just because that's what is expedient to existing victims? Because it won't help future potential victims. Even changing the law or boosting enforcement won't get at the root cause.

The fact is that sadly, sociopathic behavior like this is socially acceptable. Every time a woman speaks up, half of the crowd chimes in to defend the sociopath. "It was her own fault", you say. "Women are such whiners; this happens to everyone", you say. And let's be clear: it's easy for a woman to think women are unfairly targeted when she's come to know so many others who have been targeted, and the harassment is often sexual. There's a point to be made that women are perhaps too often thin-skinned. But often this point is made regardless to the severity of the harassment (total destruction of career, made to feel unsafe and insecure even in her own home or the home of her family, made to fear for the safety of that family). And most of the people making this point, especially in a place like Slashdot that allows people to post anonymously, make their point with misogynistic slurs. It's only understandable that this position is almost always attacked as "blaming the victim" when there are only a couple of rational voices in the mob.

How can the law help us? Will it stop people from being sociopaths? Not any more than drunk driving laws made people stop driving drunk. Drunk driving used to be just as socially acceptable as wife beating and criminal harassment. What changed? MADD and systematic messaging from law enforcement and driver's education told entire generations of new drivers that it is not acceptable. Now drunk driving is the sort of thing only completely irresponsible people do, right? While that doesn't mean nobody does it, it does mean nobody defends the behavior. We need a single message to spread to every single child regarding harassment: this is not OK.

Sociopaths are bad for society, which means that even when they aren't attacking you personally, their assaults still hurt you. Every time a Kathy Sierra is harassed out of her comfort zone, we lose another intelligent perspective. We lose the voice behind javaranch.com. And to all you lonely nerds out there: we lose one more woman that understands and appreciates what you do. One more woman that might have shared your dreams and obsessions.

What can we do about sociopaths? First, we can learn to defend ourselves. My first rule of the internet is to use a pseudonym, and keep your pseudonym separate from your family and local friends. Never attach any pictures or personal information that could connect your pseudonym to you. Never, and I mean never take a nude picture of yourself.

Remember though that none of this is a guarantee. All it takes is more effort to uncover who you are and where you live. So the second step is to support the victims. Now, I understand some of you are a bit obsessed with fraud, and think these victims are just seeking attention. You attack the victim's credibility. Stop. You don't have to personally believe the victim, but it does no good to cast doubt. Victims don't even want attention, and they definitely don't want to be assaulted even more. So many victims don't report crimes against them because they don't want to relive the experience, or because they are afraid of people like you. What victims (should) want is for their life to go on as if nothing happened, while also making sure the same thing can never happen to anybody else. What you can do is direct your attention toward the problem instead of the victim. Attack the crime, even if you don't believe it happened. You might say, "Harassment is wrong, and I am appalled to think this kind of thing even happens." You might say, "I actually have trouble believing the story because it's so unthinkable that someone could be this much of a sociopath." You might say, "I though this sort of thing never happened, and it certainly never should."

Only after those two steps have been taken should we even talk about legal action. The law cannot prevent crimes from being committed; it can only punish the perpetrator. Criminal trials, further, are not conducted for your amusement. Trials are often decided on procedural details, such as "this defendant has no assets, so given the potential penalties, all of which couldn't be applied, there's no reason to conduct a trial at all". Trials are often decided on the skill and effort of the lawyers involved.

Changing the law is a nice idea, but people tend to be pretty resentful of laws that don't match their personal beliefs. That's why step two is so important. You will never get people to report harassment and support victims just by passing laws. This is where we are with workplace sexual harassment: laws were passed giving a lot of power to the victims, but they can still be stigmatized and blacklisted in their profession for using those laws because their peers still think that harassment is OK.

Don't go straight for the law books. Go into the community and change public opinion. It's the only way we can truly marginalize and prevent sociopathic behavior like this.

Comment Re:more than I can technically achieve over wirele (Score 1) 279

10mbps is two orders of magnitude smaller than gigabit. Going the extra distance is the cutting edge of technology right now, while getting 10mbps over wireless was solved years ago and is now easy. And "reliable" refers to "reliably getting gigabit speeds", which is not something you are apparently qualified to judge.

Practically speaking, sure, 10mbps is plenty of speed for today's internet. Most of the time. Well, actually we're just used to so much slower that it seems blazing fast, but then it's about as hard to imagine needing more than 100mbps as it is to imagine needing more than a 2TB hard drive. It's not like we've ever had to make do with less and found ways to use up the extra bandwidth/space. So why exactly does Google even want people to have gigabit to their homes?

Comment A (disgusting) thing (Score 1) 249

Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you. And then the online world becomes customized, just for you.

This is not my definition of a "beautiful thing". "Privately and securely"? Only if you really trust what the right hand (PR) to tell us what the left hand (advertisers) are actually doing. And an online world that is "customized, just for you" is an online world where nobody shares the same experience. We are being increasingly isolated from each other based on our own poorly conceived personal preferences, more and more incapable of forming a powerful social consensus, and you call this a "beautiful thing"?

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful elimination? -- Don Knuth, "Structured Programming with Gotos"

Working...