Who's contending the derogatory part? Derogatory != sexist.

Are you simple or are you only capable of holding half a sentance in your head at one go.

I *SPECIFICALLY* said way back in the beginning that I wouldn't considerit sexist if he's ever used similar terms for men. If he only uses it for women then yes, it is sexist.

moron.

And according to http://www.oxforddictionaries....:

derogatory
1A prostitute.

see the derogatory bit there?

Thanks!

a person using the insult "whore" is sexist

Where did I say that? In fact I specifically included a line in the original post to forestall such comments. Please go back and read the post.

Anyway, why do you think Khyber was using the word 'whore' as an insult?

Because it's almost always used that way? These days it's a derogatory term for prostitute. Even if she was a prostiture it's still an insult.

Right, just because you're aware of the error doesn't mean you're not still in error. At some level, you're assuming whore woman.

The phrase "whore" is most commonly used as a pejorative directed at women (as it was in this case) who are having (as defined by the person using the phrase) too much sex. It is almost never dirceted at men, because very many people have double standards about sex when it comes to men and women.

Next time, I'll just assume you're unfairly characterizing another person.

Anyone using "whore" is an insult is at best a puritan. Unless they use similar things for men as well, they're also a sexist puritan. There's a very high chance that the person is a sexist puritan, because puritanical attitudes usually come with all sorts of fucked up assumptions about sex and those fucked up attitudes while by no means exclusively sexist, contain a fair dose of sexism.

So yes: if someone uses the insult "whore" it does indeed tell me a fair amount about the person. Certainly enough for me to characterize some aspects.

Did you actually read my post?

You know the bit about how I would retract if he had ever levelled such an accusation at a man?

Yes men can be whores too. In almost all cases, however a person using the insult "whore" is sexist.

Besides the fact Zoe herself admitted to being a whore publicly

Really? I don't remember reading anything about her admitting to taking payment for sex.

Or do you mean that she merely has a lot of sex? In which case take your sexist (I'll recant that accusation if you've ever levelled similar insults at man who has done comparable things), puritanical attitudes somewhere where you might find fellow people who are jealous of others sex lives.

The Zoe Quinn who shut down a gamejam specifically targetted at helping women coders, because she perceived it as in competition with her own fundraising efforts?

[citation needed]/pics or it didn't happen/insert meme about how any random person can make shit up on the internet.

There's no such thing as politically correct.

What's that got to do with this?

You certainly do have the right not to have threats of violence made against you.

You also have the right not to have slanderous and libellous claims made against you.

Even with the laws about freedom of speech none of those things are legal. This isn't about being offended, it's about being threatened and slandered.

That still requires a metric assload of libraries to be installed on the server.

I checked on my machine. The agregate size of libX* excluding Xm and Xaw in /usr/lib is 3.5M. Add in a widget toolkit like fltk and you get another 1.2M. 4.7M is hardly a metric assload.

Looks like I'd better start looking for a new default search engine, because I have no intention of moving past Firefox 22, thanks to that insane new interface they're cramming down people's throat.

You're missing out: the new firefox is substantially less memory hungry than the old one. As for the interface: the classic theme restorer works well. The only thing missing is the menu bar (with the odd thing on the right hand side). Overall given my screen (1024x600) and how much I use the menus (rare), that's not terrible.

I don't know if firefox tries to do those awful client-side decorations that Chrome thought were a good idea. If it does, I've got that disabled.

What neither chip maker wants to admit is that from 1993 to 2006 what we had was a BUBBLE, no different than the real estate or dotbomb bubbles.

That's because it's total horseshit.

In 1993 we had what a 486 at 60MHz or something? In 2006 we were up to the Core 2 processors which were several thousand times faster. It's not a bubble because it never burst. We still get to keep our Core 2 duo processors and they're every bit as fast. And the newer processors have been faster or cheaper or lower power and frequently two or even three out of three.

Whereas in the other bubbles, stuff got expensive then it crashed and the same stuff got cheap again. The only value was the money and people left with the stuff turned cheap had nothing.

There is no reason, NO REASON that Firefox should eat up 1 GB of RAM.

Firefox caches images and rendered pages so that things happen reasonably fast. A 1000x1000 colur image at 24 bit is already 3M. There is no way a modern page with an image or two would fit in a few M.

Once you have 800 tabs loaded (something I tend to do) all running JS and using images all over the place, memory vanishes fast.

There are basically several problems. Yeah firefox isn't perfect and could do with some optimization. But, many websites do pointless bloaty stuff and require scads of JS and huge images just to show some text. And then there's the browsing habits.

These days I run with NoScript, and a tab unloader, and I'm picky what scripts I allow. It makes firefox usable on my 1GB netbook. It's taking up 176M at the moment. Actually it's got a bit better recently. Even with those it needed restarting to clear the ram, but now it runs substantially longer.

For example, if I were to say "you take pride in your work", you could also say that I was "accusing" you of "ego stroking". Would you find that insulting?

No, because that means something different. Words mean stuff. If you pull a humpty-dumpty and simply invent the meaning to suit yourself then no one will have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I think you find it insulting because you believe it, and find that revelation uncomfortable.

Not really no, I was trying to educate you. You asked which post was insulting. I answered telling you where and why. You're now accusing me of ego stroking and trying to make up the meaning of things to prove your point.

Basically you tossed out some insults, seemed surprised that you were modded -1, asked for clarification then insulted the person providing it.

Come to think of it I remember you trolling XKCD threads before. Maybe one day you'll learn that it is simply a matter of taste, and that yes, throwing around insults on slashdot will get you downmodded.

Seems unlikely however.

Name one.

You really want to do this?

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

You said:

I have a different theory. His comic appeal to people who merely believe themselves to be above average. Like the 'Big Ban Theory' or the bad joke that is new 'Cosmos' series. Presumably a show for 'geeks' that has broad consumer appeal because everyone wants to believe that they're smarter than the people around them.

You're accusing people of ego stroking. That's simply throwing insults.