These early personal computers weren't much more than toys. You could play pong or simple shooting games, maybe do some word processing. And these toys were marketed almost entirely to men and boys.
Wow, not only is this wrong, it's stupid. Home computers were aimed at FAMILIES, especially Commodores. Apples were ubiquitous in education, and I don't remember girls being asked to leave the room while the boys hacked on BASIC and LOGO. Were there male-oriented ads? Yes, but I don't remember any unless you count Shatner's-- and that would be only if you were some ironic sexist who thought Star Trek wasn't for girls. The author provides a biased sample by digging up two that happened to feature boys in them-- and they still have girls present. If I felt like slogging on YouTube for an hour, I could probably find ten that had girls and women prominently involved.
These aren't just whatever, "it's just people making choices". It's clearly social and political influence.
Perhaps, but just about every choice we make is affected by social and political influence.
What am I having for dinner tonight? That's affected by externalities that affect my income (via career choice and and food prices), tastes (what was affordable when I was a kid), and who's doing the cooking (is my wife running errands when dinner needs to be made?).
What clothes did I put on today? That's affected by my personal tastes, but also by the tastes of the buyers at Target a few years ago, and on the economics of trans-oceanic clothes production, and the governmental policies of the U.S., China, Vietnam, and Thailand.
Why am I a programmer? Well, my Dad did electrical engineering, so we spent more time talking about computers than perhaps a lot of families did in the 70's and 80's. It also meant we could afford a Commodore 64 for me to start playing around with. And I was a little socially awkward as well as introverted, so programming in my basement had more appeal compared to socializing in some cases.
If the goal here is some kind of self-realization of every individual, without the influence of external factors, I just don't see how that's going to happen. I don't see any viable way to actually eliminate "unacceptable" influences, especially indirect ones.
If insurgents get sufficient backing by a foreign power or by a faction in the military then the whole question of legally owned small arms is moot.
You have to start somewhere.
Well, it isn't SC, It's SC County...
Have fun running fiber to someone in Bonny Doon, Corralitos or the Aptos hills.
Yeah well, nobody should expect 100% coverage.
You are an idiot if you think that the North Vietnamese citizenry defeated the US war machine without serious superpower backing of their own.
Who says that American insurgents couldn't get some backing? The proliferation of weapons across the country is meant to make taking the citizenry expensive, not impossible. But people want to claim otherwise to support the assertion that taking away the guns makes sense if the purpose of the second amendment is a hedge against tyranny.
I don't think the founders ever foresaw the development of world-destroying weapons. But then, I doubt they would have seen wisdom in their construction.
I just gave you an example, and you ask for examples? What are you, stupid?
Your problem was not a problem with init. Systemd will not solve the problem where you need NFS to boot, and NFS shits itself because it is shit.
Give us an actual example where init itself caused you a problem, or admit that you're just making shit up so that you can justify new and shiny. You're calling me stupid for insisting that you provide an actual example of a failure of init when what you provided was an example of a failure of the networking setup which could have also occurred with systemd if you misconfigured it. Now, provide an actual example of a failure of init, or if this was somehow init's fault (did it really start two init scripts at once all on its lonesome, or did the first script exit before it was done?) then explain that, and don't just describe a problem with scripts (which could also happen by misconfiguring a unit file) or with a daemon. From your description, it sounds a lot more to me like a problem with your distribution's network setup system, whatever that looks like.
That word isn't child, it isn't anime, it isn't pornography. It is computer.
And anyone who thinks about it for a moment and doesn't see this for what this is, class warfare
the majority of the world is walking around with computers in their pockets, there is no class warfare here, unless you had a point but were very far from it in your comment
I have to wonder how the judge draws the line between something like this conviction and, say, the Simpsons Movie, where Bart is rocking some full frontal on the big screen.
There's a difference, for sure -- one is funny and clearly a cartoon, whereas one sounds like it's purposefully sexualizing children.
right, but when people propose to ban virtual child porn because they argue that it promotes child abuse, they have to propose banning depictions like the one you mention, because that depiction could be used by someone for sexual gratification, and/or it could arouse those desires in them. Sure, it's a crude representation, but there are cruder ones on cave walls that we seem to be able to recognize.
We're also very good at moral panics and crusades. The US can only copy: We invented them.
Sadly, it is not true that the US can only copy. Well, perhaps it is true today, but for a while there, we were real innovators... including the area of moral panics and crusades.
They want something different than the common-carriers rules, because it is "not like the phone system which used only one application."
Right, but that's actually a lie. It is exactly like the phone system which used only one application. In the case of the phone system that application was transmission of sound, and in the case of the internet system that application is transmission of packets. If you argue that these packets' different nature makes them fundamentally different applications, then you must also argue that carrying data on a modem call over the phone system is a fundamentally different application, and then you cannot state that the phone system used only one application. In fact, it had two, and yet they were treated exactly identically. That is, in fact, a strong argument in favor of net neutrality.