Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 1) 432

And that isn't even what I'm talking about.

But it is what I'm talking about. I'm saying there are be circumstances under which "asking someone out" actually is harassment (morally, not legally), and why "there should not normally be a problem" is a reasonable answer from a lawyer: because actions never exist in a vacuum. Most of the time guys only ask a girl out if they've been given social cues to indicate that the answer may be "yes"; some of the time guys are a bit clueless and ask even though they've not been given any cues, or if they've been given "no" cues; but there are circumstances in which a guy asking is just one instance of a pattern of obnoxious behavior.

Another example, same person, was there was a fellow who brought work in some times, and managed to "accidentally" touch her butt a number of times.

I can understand why your coworker didn't want to report it to HR. But seriously, that guy was in the wrong. Your coworker managed to deal with the situation (by calling in another guy to help), but she shouldn't have had to deal with it at all. Don't you agree?

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 1) 432

He told her the truth, that he was sexually attracted. I think his is much better than if he had thought of a fake reason for her to leave his courses, e.g. to give her bad grades so that she chooses another department to specialize later on.

You still haven't given me indication that you've tried to look at things from a woman's perspective. As I asked -- wouldn't you be pissed if you went to work for a company, and after being there 6 months the manager asked you to move to a different department (or to find another job) because they were sexually attracted to you (when you had done nothing but be polite)?

In the past they said that the university isn't the place for women. We now got to the point to say that this is wrong. You say that the university isn't the place for men who occasionally fall in love with one of the students of their sexual preference? Isn't that similar thinking to above? Yes, I do agree that we should close university's doors for people who get emotional with every woman and can't hold it back, but there really should be a reasonable compromise.

So yes, we he have two exclusive options here:

  • 1. Allow men who cannot maintain professional conduct with female students to work as professors, and make the women work around the problem by moving around to different advisors until they find one that can. This is good for men who have that problem, and bad for all women.
  • 2. Insist that only men who can maintain professional conduct with female students work as professors, and make men who have difficulty doing so find another job. This is bad for men who have that problem, but good for all women.

On the whole I think #1 is both more fair and more desirable than #2.

Do note that it's "maintain professional conduct", not "never experience emotional or physical attraction".

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 1) 432

But we can already see how the story would play out if the genders were inverted.

Things that have only happened in your mind are not data points. :-)

Your model of the universe looks very different than mine; in my model, "advisor forces PhD student to move because of their incompetence" doesn't generally involve sexual harassment lawsuits (which is what you seem to imply), regardless of the gender of the advisor or student, unless some sort of harassment actually took place.

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 1) 432

So that's what counts has "harassment" in the pro radical feminist society now-a-days. The argument is tired but it doesn't make it less true: If the supervisor was an attractive guy or if she was interested in him, those exact same words would be perfectly acceptable.

Um, no it wouldn't? If you're forced to throw away your research and start over again because your advisor isn't able to do his job, it sucks no matter what they look like. Even if there were mutual romantic attraction, it's never acceptable for a manager to have a romantic relationship with an employee (or an advisor with a student, for similar reasons). This has nothing to do with the gender of either party.

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 3, Insightful) 432

In a world where many young women believe if a man asks you out and you don't like him, it is sexual harassment, it gets a little hazy as to what sexual harassment is. Sometimes trying to pick up a simple friendship might be harassment.

Have you ever been given unwanted romantic / sexual attention? Or seen it happening? Isn't it uncomfortable? And shouldn't people be able to work without it?

I'm a heterosexual man, and I've got a male coworker who is bisexual, who once when (in a group of coworkers) discussing a particularly smart outfit I was wearing, said "You're making me hot just looking at you." He genuinely meant it as a compliment, but given that we had never had more than a professional relationship, it was inappropriate.

Now he hasn't really made any further comments, so it hasn't been much of an issue (although I am much more circumspect about how I interact with him now). But suppose he said something like that once a month. Or that he kept asking me over to his place or to go see movies 1-1. That would make me pretty uncomfortable -- and I shouldn't have to put up with that at work.

That's not to say you can never ask anyone out at work. It's to say that you should be aware that the other person is unusually constrained. It's not like a party where they can just mingle somewhere else: they're stuck working with you unless one of you finds a new job. You should always be reasonably sure that the question itself will not be unwelcome, even in a merely social situation; at work, the level of "how sure should I be" is higher -- not because of the risk of being fired, but because of how much more constrained the other person is in how they can respond if they're not interested.

Doesn't that make sense? This seems like basic human consideration to me.

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 1) 432

Both men and women have internalized misogyny, but it surfaces in different ways. For example, if a man believes I'm a woman, he may offer to carry heavy things for me. If a woman assumes I'm a man, she may ask me to carry heavy things for her, even when she is clearly physically stronger than I.

The 'mis' in misogyny and misandry means 'hate'. (See also, 'misanthrope'.) I fail to see how "expecting an average man to be stronger than the average woman" counts as hating women. Shooting up a bunch of random women because nobody will have sex with you is misogyny.

Comment Re:Here we go. (Score 1) 432

The biggest thing I hate about SJWs is that they only look at the world from their own (female, and mostly speaking with female victims of sexual harrassment, not with men) perspective. What should he have done if he had such feelings? Quit his job? Ignore his feelings, every week, because men have to be strong? Here, that's a stereotype.

Looking at it from both sides made sense, but it doesn't sound yet like you've looked at it from both sides. Isn't it reasonable for women to be able to expect to come to university and study -- to be able to choose a professor to work with on a professional basis -- without having to either a) worry continually that they may fall in love with you, or b) have to switch advisors 2-3 times until you find one that can treat you professionally?

I mean really -- wouldn't you be pissed if you went to work for a company, and after being there 6 months the manager asked you to move to a different department (or to find another job) because they were sexually attracted to you (when you had done nothing but be polite)?

If you are a manager in a company, whether you are male of female, having employees who are both male and female is part of your job. If you are a woman who can't handle having male subordinates without forming an emotional attachment, or a man who can't handle having female subordinates without forming an emotional attachment, then being a manger is not for you.

Same thing with being a professor: mentoring both male and female grad students is a part of your job, just like teaching classes or doing research. If you can mentor students but can't do research, then a normal tenure-track professorship at a Research I institution isn't for you. If you can do research but can't mentor half of the students who come to you, it's not for you either.

Comment Re:Connection is obscure (Score 4, Interesting) 134

Actually, according to that article, the reason WhatsApp was shut down was because they didn't even bother to respond, not because they refused:

Because WhatsApp did not respond to a court order of July 23, 2015, on August 7, 2015, the company was again notified, with there being a fixed penalty in case of non-compliance. As yet the company did not attend the court order, the prosecution requested the blocking of services for a period of 48 hours, based on the law [], which was granted by Judge Sandra Regina Nostre Marques

It sounds like what my old DI's used to say: "Yes sir? No sir? F*** you sir? Say something!"

Comment Re:Correlation != causation (Score 1) 115

Similarly, people who spend a lot of time sitting may well do so because they have limited ability to exercise due to other health problems.

Yeah, the first thing I thought was, "Well, maybe the more unhappy your life is, the more of these kinds of behaviors you're likely to engage in."

If you find that A and B are correlated, you have to ask if A caused B, or B caused A, or if there's a third thing C, which is causing both B and A. Either being chronically unhappy, or being ill, are things which could both 1) make it more likely for people to have these behaviors, and 2) make them more likely to die.

Comment Re:More Details (Score 1) 309

But this basically shows why Lessig will never be able to win, and even if he did win, would never be able to accomplish anything. Politics is about working the system, having one-to-one conversations to influence people. Obviously he doesn't have buy-in at the DNC level. If the party he wants to run with are changing the rules at the very beginning of his campaign to thwart his plans, what would the party who opposes him do all the way through his tenure?

Comment Bugs happen, even in hypervisors (Score 2) 61

Go do LWN's search page, uncheck all the boxes except for "security vulnerabilities", and then search for "KVM". Or Qemu, or Linux or Xen.

You'll find that all hypervisors have privilege escalation bugs discovered. However, this is the first one discovered in the Xen PV interface in a long time.

Comment Re:Not very serious (Score 3, Insightful) 95

...an unrelated bug causes the vulnerable FDC code to remain active and exploitable by attackers.

Which is why the PV mode in Xen is such a killer security feature -- the more stuff you have just lying around, even if unused in theory, the higher the probability that there will be a bug somewhere that can be exploited.

Comment Re:Black hat (Score 1) 81

What if someone who privately knows about the vulnerability gets the idea to exploit various installations of competitors (or even common users!) during the embargo period? Do you trust large enterprises not to misuse their knowledge to their own advantage?

Of course that's a risk. But again, is it worse to have a handful of people who are trying to be secretive know about the vulnerability while vendors update and carefully test their software, or for for the entire world to know about the vulnerability while vendors scramble to get something out the door as soon as possible?

Comment Re:Black hat (Score 3, Informative) 81

Since Open Source projects communicate in the open (even if just version control commits), I find it quite likely that all major security-related projects are monitored by black hat hackers. The few weeks waiting period gives them ample time to use the security hole.

That's why the Xen Project doesn't put the fix into version control until after the embargo period is over. Only people on the predisclosure list (or those able to listen in) would be able to learn about the vulnerability without doing their own audit of the code to find the bug themselves (which is very expensive).

There's basically a balance to be struck. All users not on the predisclosure list (and thus who cannot update their systems until the embargo period is over) will continue to be privately vulnerable during the embargo period: anyone who happens to have dug deep enough and found the bug can still exploit it. But as soon as the announcement is made, everyone who hasn't yet updated is publicly vulnerable: Nobody has to search to find the bug, they just have to write an exploit for it. Being privately vulnerable is certainly bad, but being publicly vulnerable is far worse. The goal of the embargo period is to try to reduce the time that users are publicly vulnerable by extending the time they are privately vulnerable. Two weeks has been found to be a reasonable cost/benefit trade-off in our experience.

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm

Working...