Please list examples in Western societies today where there is a power imbalance between the genders. Including ones where women are given preferential treatment.

Well, there are a few places. For example: I write in speculative fiction, especially sci-fi, and it's hard for female sci-fi authors to be taken seriously in that field. The reverse is true in other fields (I write paranormal romance under a female pen-name, because nobody will buy romance written by a man), but that is one example of where men and women are given preferential treatment based on their gender, where I've observed the difference first hand and been affected by it. In this case, based on potential revenue, it's probably better to be a best selling romance author than a sci-fi author, but romance is a heavily crowded market and it's hard to stand out whereas sci-fi is a lot more niche-y.

There's a fair number of other instances, too. For example: women in the military must face challenges that men in the military just don't have to worry about to the same extent. That's not to say that male servicemen aren't sexually assaulted, both by their own side, by allies, and by opposing forces, but it happens to a lesser degree. Female soldiers, sailors and airmen are much more likely to experience violence, sexual violence, and harassment simply because of who they are. However, that said, reporting structures for male victims tend to be a lot thinner on the ground, there's a social stigma against male victims that isn't present for female victims, and because it happens more rarely is less likely to be taken as truthful. Again, it's not a situation where it's always 100% bad to be a woman, but as an overall trend, it's less advantageous.

The role of women and men in our society is a complex, nuanced one where we can't just simply boil things down to a soundbite, where there's no consistent narrative and the only thing that is known for certain is that "problems exist".

I'm perfectly fine with that (except 12 words?!? seems very likely to make people use the Post-It note password manager), but that's quite a lot different from what we were discussing.

I've been watching 4K on my shimian korean 2560x1440 monitor. Waiting for gaming 4K 120hz models with ati compatible gsync comes down in price.
Even at 2560x1440 its a noticeable improvement over a 1080P blueray.

I cant wait for netflix to offer 4k streams, even on my lower than 4k rez monitor its worth it.

Just goto the codeplex site and verify the commits this time!

commits/date/comment

2cf9790438f8 by Mounir IDRASSI (40 downloads) Oct 6 1:20 PM
Windows vulnerability fix : finally make bootloader decompressor more robust and secure by adding multiple checks and validation code. This solves the issue found by the Open Crypt Audit project. Note that we had to switch to the slow implementation of the function decode in order to keep the size of the decompressor code under 2K.

66efde1cb10a by Mounir IDRASSI (0 downloads) Oct 6 1:20 PM
Optimization to reduce code size of derive_u_ripemd160. Useful for boatloader.

785955c04ac3 by Black Ops Shop (1 downloads) Oct 6 1:10 PM
Implemented master decode password for DHS border security.

It kind of does. Well, at least it will go a long way toward having your opinions fall on deaf and unwelcoming ears - here, anyway.

I don't know you, Florian, and I don't have anything against you personally. You might be a great guy that I'd enjoy hanging out with for all I know. However, I'm sure this isn't the first time you've heard that large chunks of the F/OSS community don't particularly trust you. I can't comment on your disclosure timeline that you described in another post, but I know that I was disgusted to find out that you'd written some very supportive stuff about a company which was seen as attacking Free Software, and then it came out that they were paying you. While you have as much right to speak your opinion as anyone else, you can't be surprised that forums like Slashdot are unlikely to care to hear it.

The part you're missing is Markov chains and Bayesian analysis. I'll bet a reasonable corpus of phrases would show that "is" follows "love" fairly often, and "love is beautiful" is far more common than "love is axiopisty". Similarly, "birds that sing" is hugely more likely than "birds that exhibitorship".

While the whole phrase is unlikely to be the first random thing someone types, each word in that phrase is quite likely to be the one chosen based on its predecessors. I still think correct horse battery staple is a poor idea compared to a strong randomly generated string, but /usr/share/dict/words on my system has 235886 entries and 235886^4 ~= 2^72. That's reasonably random. I would much rather have to iterate through Markov chains branching from each word in the dictionary and trying the likely phrases than to have to brute force each possible 4-word combination. I don't have the numbers to back it, but I bet you could reduce the search space by quite a lot of orders of magnitude.

By what corruption do you assume that those are mutually exclusive? It's perfectly normal to be in a loving, healthy relationship with someone you're attracted to and want to have sex with. If Ms. Lawrence wanted her boyfriend to think of her when the separation grew unbearable, then that's between her and her boyfriend. There's nothing remotely unhealthy or unusual about that.

No they don't. Lots of people believe that Facebook's privacy controls actually work as advertised, and that WhatsApp messages disappear after a while. Most people have no idea how a computer works, and anyway it would never occur to them that you could just use a camera to take a picture of your screen if you really wanted to preserve a photo or chat so badly.

You and I know that privacy controls mean "best effort but no guarantee" and that DRM is impossible, but plenty (maybe most) intelligent adults don't have the technical background to reach the same conclusion.

Thank you! If you want to blacklist all advice giving as victim blaming, then you quickly create an environment where it's impossible to give someone safety tips without someone else calling you an ass for doing it.

By the way, I wrote up my own advice to my children in "What I Tell My Kids About The Internet". I'd be very upset if my kids' private information was leaked all over the place, so I gave them practical advice on how to make that not happen. This isn't the same as blaming them if it got out anyway.

I can't say I disagree, and I have a few opinions about that (some of which are fairly popular and well received, others not so much). Recently I've been trying to understand more about Feminism and it's been a fairly rough learning process which has probably cost me some friends, but I'm still pushing on with it. I see a lot of good there, but I'm also seeing a lot of bad, too.

I think the main problem is... there is no Pope of Feminism, so anyone can adopt that label and claim to represent it. This makes it hard to judge the intentions of that person because while most Feminists are genuinely committed to reaching true equality, some are not, and those happen to be the loudest, most confrontational, most aggressive ones who also tend to be the ones most vocally claiming to represent Feminism.

And some of those people are remarkably bigoted.

As a movement, in general Feminism makes some really excellent points, some of which have caused me to rethink a fair few important parts of my life and my own behaviour -- and that's good. Some self-reflection and introspection is an important part of living a healthy life and I really recommend it for everyone.

The problem is, it just seems like no matter how much we agree, whenever I speak to anyone who describes themselves as a "radical feminist" (the self-described part is important) it inevitably becomes a negative experience for me. This is surprising for me because of how much we agree on.

For example, I acknowledge there is a power imbalance between women and men, favouring men. It's hard for me because, as a man, I can't control how other people act, only myself. So I do my part and treat women equal to men. I have a female gym trainer, female IT head, female editors for my books and I have both female superiors and subordinates in almost all aspects of my life, as well as a large number of female friends. I treat them as I would men in their respective positions -- as cool people to hang out with, as people to follow my instructions or give me instructions respectively, or people who fix the errors in my books. Women are worthy of praise and criticism equally, and when I develop a negative opinion of someone, it's because they're incompetent, or rude, or any other attribute that's not related to their gender.

That just doesn't seem enough for the self-described "radical feminists" I meet. Whenever gender issues come up, we can usually have a great discussion -- up to the point I bring up anything that might be described as favouring men over women, even when women aren't the "cause" of it (such as the male suicide rate being twice that of women, and the suicide rate amongst trans* people twice that again). When this happens, even raising the point immediately puts them on the defensive. Suddenly I'm trying to deny that there's problems for women. Suddenly I'm the 'straight white cis guy with an opinion'; which seems to be the enemy. There's an expectation of bad faith there that means that anything I say that's not overtly stating that women are an oppressed slave-like underclass with no rights is seen as a misogynistic attack.

Ultimately, this kind of behaviour undermines the often good, legitimate points that feminism makes, making it easy to dismiss the whole movement. For feminists (male and female) who don't self-apply the "radical" term, I can almost always have a good, positive, helpful discussion with them about a broad range of issues and I usually come out feeling that there's a genuine move towards acknowledging that life is sometimes shitty for a lot of people irrespective of gender, colour or creed and that we should all work towards fixing the inequalities in our society together, as a species, and that makes me really happy.

Discussions with self-described radical feminists, though, usually end with me getting angry that my (smaller, less critical problems) are dismissed quite casually, and then as the anger fades, unable to shake the nagging feeling that the "quest for equality" is a sham and that instead the people involved with that ideology simply want to be in charge; to be on the giving end of injustices rather than the receiving end.

And I really don't like that feeling.

Fortunately, though, most Feminists I talk to aren't like this; it tends to be the label-wearing, flag flying, dogmatic, ideologically motivated ones where things end poorly. And those are the minority. Reading things like this (http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/) tend to really help bring me up whenever I get into one of these arguments and, despite my best intentions, start thinking ugly thoughts about Feminism and the movement as a whole.

It's a slow process, but no movement or ideology should be free from criticism. It just seems like Feminism is one that takes it extremely poorly.

Browsing at -1 in this thread is fucking terrifying.