Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:its in public (Score 5, Insightful) 124

it's in public. u don't have any expectation of privacy

Historically true, but if we're headed for a world where everything we do and everything we say in public (at least outside and within the city limits) is on file for all time on a server somewhere that's been pre-analyzed and indexed using using facial recognition and voice recognition... we might want to consider revising that rule of thumb a bit.

Comment Re:Race to the bottom (Score 2) 407

I can't help it if the journalists in this country are dead set on proving Trump right. He should be the one person it should be possible to oppose by sticking to talking about normal, sensible truth but when faced with such a jackass the media can't help but lie and blither a stream of irrelevances. It's been very illuminating.

That doesn't mean they lie more than he does (of course not), but they are a much deeper and more durable fixture of American (and world) culture than the shit talking 70 year old buffoon in the White House.

Comment Re:But this isn't sexism. (Score 1) 904

I take it you have never lived with a woman.

To make a men's jacked a woman's jacket, the zipper zips from the left side. To tell a men's shirt from a woman's shirt, the button's are on the left side as opposed to men's shirts have buttons on the right side.

Super wooooooooooooooosh. I even mentioned that *exact* button thing.

Comment Re: Race to the bottom (Score 1) 407

You have it wrong, as nobody wins in a race to the bottom, that's the point of the expression.

The expression is a complicated one with a long and varied history. Describing it as "everyone loses" really missed the point. The expression is more about the process involved more than the end result.

It can be like a game of chicken. Somebody does indeed win if the other one swerves before hitting bottom, or otherwise can't continue the race, or if one party is more bottom-tolerant than the other. In this context, the American right is more tolerant of and proficient with lies and nonsense than the American left. The latter will fall to shambles long before the former does, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a race right now.

A lot of industries had a race to the bottom with Chinese competitors. Guess what? China won, because their "bottom" is lower than that found in first world nations. And it's a real victory we're talking about here; they're raking in the billions.

You lose on such a victory, as it is destructive.

No, you're thinking of pyrrhic victory.

Comment Re: But this isn't sexism. (Score 1) 904

Major sample bias issues if those are only military personnel they're examining. Feel free to dig through it and come up with the % difference in that ratio if you wish, though. (Not the % difference in arm length, but % difference in the arm length / torso lngth ratio.) Also, you need to include the standard deviation for both sexes so we know roughly how many males will be inconvenienced compared to the females, and for that number you might need some sort of joint distribution (which may or may not be possible to construct with the data given.)

Comment Re:But this isn't sexism. (Score 1) 904

More chest room would be my guess.

I think males typically have bigger chest circumferences and longer torsos, so it's not at all clear which way that would swing. Breast size is a huge variable there. She said that they took their measurements, so if the jackets were being custom tailored or at least had more than a one dimensional S/M/L/XL sizing system, this is all moot regardless.

Comment Re:But this isn't sexism. (Score 1) 904

A lot of conjecture here that goes against my anecdotal observations. The waist size difference is a bit silly, this being 2017 (what with the obesity epidemic obliterating causing far greater variation than gender.) Any gendered studies of arm length to torso length ratios? And that's all assuming it's a S/M/L situation; the "taking our measurements" bit implies higher end jackets that were going to be custom tailored, making all of this moot.

No, they weren't offered men's jackets. They were told that they were not getting them at the last minute, after the order had been placed.

Well, that's obviously malevolent bullshit if true.

Comment Race to the bottom (Score 1) 407

This is a race to the bottom the left cannot win. The right is used to and will tolerate an astonishing quantity of lies and bullshit. The left, as we've already seen, will become demoralized when faced with a candidate who is only a blandly, typically-horrible politician.

The Times has already reached "bad enough" in my estimation, along with every other news publication I've ever looked at in any detail. And unlike the millions of evangelicals who watch Fox News and reluctantly voted for Trump, I don't grade on a curve.

The mainstream media needs to aggressively, forcefully hold Trump to account. Given the amount of material they have to work with, this should be an easy task. Unfortunately, they have conclusively demonstrated that they cannot separate out lies from truth, much less the absurdly sensationalist and irrelevant from the reasonable and important. They've fallen prey to the greatest troll[1] the world has ever seen and it will destroy them in the end, once the lurid headlines lose their charm.

And history will record the moment of their downfall, of course, as the moment they tried kill two birds with one stone with their "fake news" non-story[2], too busy drinking their own kool-aid to realize that mainstream news has always been a pretty damn sketchy enterprise, even during its supposed golden eras.

1. Albeit probably one who is operating mostly on a subconscious level.

2. Fabricated news websites and chain emails and conspiracy theories obviously exist, but they've been around for a long time and are more of a symptom than a disease in their own right.

Comment Re:Echo-chamber fake news (Score 2) 407

Yup. And that's just the tip of the clusterfuck iceberg. Anyone who is interested should read Feynman's appendix in its entirity, which he insisted should be added to the Roger's Commission report on threat of having his name removed from the whole thing.

He believed that NASA's delusional bureaucracy was ultimately to blame and it needed to be torn down entirely and rebuilt. The other members of the commission disagreed, which is pretty much why two decades later the crew of the Columbia died. Sadly, a narrative of organizational incompetence is extremely hard to keep alive in the mainstream media, so in the minds of most people they're still just random tragedies... an unavoidable price of space flight.

Two other things worth noting about Feynman's assessment: he was strongly impressed by the software systems of the Shuttle, considering it to be much more robust than the hardware (not the sort of thing one often hears these days), and the coda to his appendix is, of course, a timeless one worth quoting:

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Comment Re: Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 920

Except my point was that your estimation of "The Producers" lacks much in the way of validity.

If you thought that sucking Hollywood genitalia was a sound way to demonstrate validity of assessment, you thought wrong. Beyond all of the obvious problems attendant with asserting that mainstream tastes are the only "valid" ones, it's worth noting how historical works routinely get a pass for being different or trailblazing instead of being good works that actually stand the test of time. Edit the play out of The Producers (which is what, less than 10 minutes of screen time?), show it to people who've never seen it before and it would get abysmal reviews. It's a one-trick pony movie. It just happens to be a good trick.

It really comes across as irate.

No moreso than usual. Several of Mel Brooks' works are fairly overrated, having a couple hilarious scenes padded out with an hour of filler. And some of his later movies are underrated despite having better pacing and consistency. And I'm sure I'd find plenty to dislike in many of PDP's vids.

Comment Re: But this isn't sexism. (Score 1) 904

The key phrase is this:

we women needed to find jackets that were the same price as the bulk-order price of the men's jackets.

That sounds an awful lot like the women were able to get a "men's jacket" if they wanted to.

we can't say what differentiated them,

Built-in beard trimmer and cock ring? Transparent torso to show off chest hairs? Built-in testosterone replacement therapy patches sewn into the shoulders? "Female Body Inspector" emblazoned on it in large orange letters above an Uber logo? What are *you* imagining?

It's basically breaking a promise, and then after being called on it

Oh yeah, the biggest problem with cutthroat white collar jobs is they 'lied' about their custom jacket being available with a pretty princess trim. This point (along with some others) drastically detracts from the rest of her claims by making her seem like an out of touch whiner. Highly competitive Dilbert-esque environments like she's describing are hell are on Earth, a neverending stream of politicking and lies. Not making a female only version of their swag is an utterly absurd complaint.

I've worked in jobs that had uniforms and guess what, there was no female-specific version. The hats and pants and such appear roughly masculine, because when it comes to clothing 'masculine' tends towards neutrality (i.e. mostly sans decoration) and being utilitarian.

making people take a lesser choice

Which is you asserting that non-stereotypically feminine clothing is lesser. Ignoring the question of whether or not that's a slight against male fashion, I've personally known probably a dozen females who would disagree with you.

And apparently doing the work themselves.

If they wanted to be treated special instead of being treated like members of the human race who also had torsos, heads, two arms, and a need to stay warm in the winter, then yes they had to do the work themselves. It's a pity you have such a big problem with egalitarianism.

Comment Re:But this isn't sexism. (Score 3, Insightful) 904


They bought jackets for all the male staff, but didn't for the females. That's blatent discimination and sexism from a company. Who gives a fuck what it costs? Buy them the fucking jackets, they earnt them as much as the boys.

She explicitly said they had the option to get a "male" jacket. I don't know off the top of my head what makes a leather jacket feminine vs. masculine, but I've seen a woman wearing a leather jacket from the men's section and, as long as the size is right, it looks fine. Feminine versions of clothing generally consists of being tighter or having frivolous trim or something. There's no functional reason to have a separate female version of a leather jacket except to pander to gender stereotypes. Which is itself supportive of a mild form of sexism, not a remedy for sexism. I mean granted, you can make an argument that they should get all female jackets and the men should have to adjust to those, except as I just pointed out male clothing tends towards the more utilitarian[1].

if it makes the employee's work place a nicer place to come to

That has nothing to do with anything. The issue is whether or not it is sexist to not specifically cater to a separate, stereotypical feminine aesthetic. One that's not shared by all females, for that matter. If the women showed up for their first day at work and their computers had the aforementioned hot pink with glittery flowers (without them asking for it) and their male counterparts had normal looking computers, I bet she'd be crying sexism. But it's the same thing in principle. Equality means equality, not asking for special treatment because you're been sociologically conditioned to hate leather jackets if they don't have a fringe or the buttons on the left side or come in pastel colors or whatever the hell it is that's supposed to make a leather jacket feminine.

1. Well, at least as far as jackets go. Women have a clothing advantage in most warmer contexts.

Comment But this isn't sexism. (Score 2) 904

A boss making a pass at an subordinate is not sexism. It's a big problem, yes, and it doesn't sound like Uber handled it very well if the woman's account is accurate, but there wasn't any trace of sexism throughout the entire story that I saw (I was skimming) except for the meeting with the HR woman she briefly described at the very end.

The bulk of her story seemed to be just vague conspiratorial stuff, implying her poor performance reviews under another manager on under team was due to the original boss's evil influence which... I don't know, anything's possible, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable default assumption. In the crazed and cutthroat culture she describes, it seems more reasonable to assume it was normal bullshit, not evil anti-woman bullshit.

Oh yeah, and she seemed to think that the company's refusal to order a special feminine version of the special leather jackets they had bought constitutes sexism. Just let that sink in a moment--*not* pandering to arbitrary social conventions that insist a female's jacket has to have a slightly different cut and styling is sexism. Why stop there? Why not insist it's sexism to not give all of the women hot pink keyboard, perhaps spangled with little glittery flowers?

The first step to getting people to take sexism seriously: don't conflate normal (if inappropriate) sexual advances as sexism. That's fucking stupid, and a lot of people will instantly tune you out after they realize that's what you're implying. It's only sexism if there's discrimination involved and, unfortunately for this woman, she's not describing any documented discrimination that I can see. I don't know what I'd tell her except to look up California laws on hidden audio recording, maybe. The HR woman at the very end sounded like she was saying sexist shit, but everyone else, by her own admission, had excuses for her performance evaluations.

Were they bullshit excuses? I'm sure they were. But that's par for the course for performance evaluations in a cutthroat environment; you can't just assume that it's sexism, just because a *former manager on a different team* once made a pass at you.

Slashdot Top Deals

That does not compute.