Sure beats the bloated 'skinned' graphics and 100MB worth of support libraries common with today's graphical applications. Winamp 2.x and foobar are examples of gui applications done right.. itunes is an example of it done wrong especially on windows.
1. software installs shouldn't default to bundling extra bullshit that really shouldn't be there in the first place?
2. software shouldn't have features that mess with source files turned on as start up/initial defaults?
itunes on windows is a piece of shit... hell so is quicktime. What started as a simple directshow/vfw codec turned into a monstrosity that installs tons of bullshit that is not necessary nor asked for.
not really since once tablets/phones have seen their day, they're discarded.. desktop and laptop computers can be repurposed..
Ie, consumer versus producer.
How quickly we moved from a 1990s society of p2p potential producers, to a society of cloud dependent, mass consumers. How sad.
Not just that such machines are overkill, full blown computers running traditional systems are for geeks, and are unsuitable for typical users.
They're quite suitable.. They were used by plenty of non technical users for several decades. Tablets and 'smart' phones are a recent development, and are really only adequate for a small subset of the uses a PC has, and ideal for none of them.
Users do not want to constantly be installing updates, they do not want to worry about security and they do not want to be braving random potentially malicious websites to install software.
Then they wouldn't want tablets/phones either, because the same thing is done here. Instead of random, malicious sites, we have apps written by random, malicious authors who want the users' personal information in return for using their app. I'd take having to clean out the occasional bootsector virus over this, anyday.
Well the first possible warning sign was the author's last name. Women who don't take their husband's last name tend to be the 'empowered' sorts who have axes to grind. I feel sorry for the husband.. a day in 'family' court is probably in his future, if it hasn't already occurred.
Would you take a book about evolution seriously from an author who had the title of pastor?
This doesn't mean that books like these shouldn't be read. Arguments stand or fall by themselves, so it doesn't matter who makes them. I am just saying it's a possible/probable indicator of bias that should be examined, and if found, excised, and the info re-evaluated. In most cases, it's bullshit, but occasionally, not.
That seems to be what universities spend their research dollars on now.. That is, when they're not spending them trying to cherry pick facts that 'prove' the veracity of their hard left political positions...just like the christians do with the bible, evolution, and their beliefs. This article falls into the latter category, because while they 'proved' that men and women are neurologically different, the goal was to show women as being deeper, more cerebral thinkers.
Tell that to feminists demanding societal concessions from men.
It is a continuum, but it is not flat. There are effectively two bells on the curve. Most men are more masculine than most women, and most women are more feminine than most men. I am sure the hormone bias follows closely. The corner cases you speak of only get the attention they do because certain political proponents' ideologies need the attention on them in order to make their own arguments appear more valid than they are.
I would agree.. However, this isn't the implied definition used by politicians and activists..and if it is, they have utterly failed because the policies they've enacted are anything but 'equal' by this definition.
teehee isn't misandry so funny? Apparently 'misogyny' isn't. Try making jokes about negative female stereotypes and see how quickly your posts got moderated down to -1 troll or flamebait by all the whiteknight pussybeggars around here.
Then women are the ones who have the privilege, not men. This is true both in the letter of the law, and the precedent set by its enforcement.
1. women get lighter sentences for crime.
2. women are assumed to be victims in 'abuse' cases whether they are or not..
3. if men call 911 because their wives are throwing knives at them, he is arrested and brought to jail. look up 'mandatory arrest.'
4. women pay less into social security yet retire sooner.
5. women don't have to sign up for the selective service in order to vote.
6. women are given access to public money (scholarships) for education just because they are women.
7. Title IX. Enough said.
8. VAWA. Enough said.
I'm no fan of fox, but if that is orly's definition, he is not far from the truth.
No, it's about ASSUMING the system isn't fair..everywhere where both the 'oppressed' and 'oppressor' classes interact, and forcing unequal policies via the state to 'right' the 'imbalance' whether it's needed or not.
The people who are deemed as 'taking without giving back' are sent to the gulag..in the context of this article, the 'gulag' is 'family' court (another newspeak misnomer), where the 'abused' wife is handed the man's wallet and he is made to pay alimony or go to prison (even though it is technically a civil matter). These are the laws in most states. I am not overexaggerating.
The bottom line is that life isn't fair. I don't mind people wanting to set up programs to give people with talent the opportunity to succeed, but when they start tying the handouts to gender, race, or sexual proclivities, ie the very things they claim are irrelevant when judging someone worthy, they become the bigots..bigots with the power of state policy backing their play. Fuck that. There is nothing altruistic or heroic in what they are doing. 'Social justice' is a political power play no different from any other.
By and large, men are physically more powerful
Maybe so, but even if they weren't, all else being equal, they'd still be the majority of the inventors/innovators/creators recorded through history, and if men had brutally repressed them, we wouldn't be sitting here with computers and the internet, would we?
It is only (very) recently that females have become broadly able to support a household without benefit of a male presence. If women are to dominate due to any particular cognitive advantage, they've only just entered the race and it'll most likely be some time yet before we see the results, both due to cultural inertia and learning curves.
Recently? All women have accomplished is the replacement of the would be man in her life with the state, separating him and/or the rest of us from our wallets to support "her body, her right, her choice" at our expense. This is not empowerment. This is privilege.
We've had 50+ years of that 'cultural inertia', and we're seeing a lot more miley cyruses, paris hiltons, hilary clintons, and kim kardashians, than we are einsteins, newtons, galileos, hawkings, bachs, van gohs, picassos, etc. We have had all these STEM incentives for women for what? 20 years now? So where are the Grays? Women seem content to stick with 'soft' liberal arts degrees, or, if they're the 'empowered, hear me roar' type, law. Again, if women were truly more predisposed to the great leaps of understanding and intuition that supposedly come from cross-hemisphere communication, coupled with the last 50+ years of feminism, we'd've seen a lot more of them by now, especially if they have such strong neurological advantages.
There's no telling what women may be capable of as yet in terms of exceeding male performance; they've barely had a few decades to try things on, and they're still being held back by religion, chauvinism, and the divisive backwards ride that sexual-role focused feminism took them on.
These days, culturally, and state policy wise, I see a lot more chauvinism coming back on men than the other way around. Examples include the "no funds/interest from girls, no boys team" mandates of title IX, and the broadening of definitions of rape and abuse, most recently expanded by VAWA. Universities routinely pass judgment on men based solely on the girl's take on any sexual encounters, no proof required. Even if he's found innocent, he's still not welcomed back on campus. It's been this way at least since the early 1990s and it's getting much worse.
Biology will not be denied. The genders are not simply social constructs you can strip away and replace. Attempts at this have ended in the destruction of stable families where, nominally at least, sane behaviors and mannerisms for both genders were passed from both parents to the children, regardless of gender. I find it interesting that feminists are so willing to acknowledge biology when it might imply an advantage over men, but when it doesn't, the disadvantage must have to be due to oppression. Core fallacies like these are what make articles like this little more than fluff propaganda pieces.
This article is a propaganda piece. Take a fact or two, wrap it up in a bunch of science fiction, and present it as an implied justification for social policy. Then end it with a catch-all that denies all culpability for being incorrect, leaving the reader with the emotional implication of the possibility. This is no different than the christian right making correlations between non-atheism and better lifestyle and using it to justify brainwashing kids with the bible in public school. It's despicable no matter who does it.
Historically, most of the philosophers, writers, inventors, creators, and capable leaders of society were men, not women. In fact, if women were truly wired better for this, men would not have been able to do anything about it. This would suggest that this study's data is incomplete, at best, and deliberately misrepresenting the truth at worst. If women were the better cross-hemisphere thinkers, then history would reflect this, as their superior intuition and abstract reasoning skills would've allowed them to dominate entire societies. Today, socialists would be fighting to get more men into STEM career paths.