I second the disagreement. There are a number of companies that deal with interesting technical problems without being complete scum. People like you that don't "discriminate against" morally bankrupt business models are what allow distasteful businesses all the way down to flat-out illegal businesses to continue.
So instead of trying to hire the great technical people from companies like Zynga, you condemn them to continue working there?
Not hiring someone from Zynga does nothing to hurt the company, simply the individual who worked there. The idea that one should be discriminated based on past workplaces is a bizarre one to me.
I agree, this was the same mentality towards Yahoo back when they sued Facebook. We were getting nonsense such as developers having no soul because they still worked for Yahoo after a specified amount of time.
If the presenter is actually saying something that is totally wrong, I would argue that they should have chosen a different topic and Katz was doing that conference a service.
Edit: although maybe he could have been more polite about it? But sitting through the misinformation seems like a waste of everybody's time.
I think there's a difference between the presenter being wrong versus a way they could do it better.
If the presenter is wrong, a polite correction/adjustment can be fantastic.
If the presenter is just.. inefficient? Then maybe it can be turned into a learning experience involving but not embarrassing the presenter. Then the guy walks away thinking "wow, so-and-so taught me how to do this even better!"
And should we also stop saying we've gotten "fucked" for similar reasons? Since you are the curator and sole arbiter of allowable phrases, I'd like to get it all clear while I've got your ear.
And should we also stop saying we've gotten "fucked" for similar reasons?
Sorta. Tis roughly the similar overtones of 'people-who-take-it-are-bad' (i.e. everyone who isn't a straight cis male), however it's not as graphic and not as tied to the actual imagery of receptive sex as the previous example.
Since you are the curator and sole arbiter of allowable phrases
What? No I'm not. Who said I was? Not me. Just because I call someone on something doesn't mean I'm the sole arbiter of things. How many articles on this site will lambaste some technology? Lots. Do we reply with "Shut up! you're not the sole arbiter of programming languages"? No that's not what happens here. One should talk about the merits of the complaint, rather than try some little deflection tactic.
What about usage of the word "use"? Surely that implies interacting with another person only for sex and we should stop using it lest we offend.
I was not deflecting, that was my way of talking about the merits of the complaint, to whit, what you object to might be a tiny subset of someone else's objections, in which case who gets to decide? By telling that person not to use that terminology, you are saying you get to decide.
I think we've also seen plenty of people who think they are the sole arbiter of programming languages, and they get called out on it.
What about usage of the word "use"? Surely that implies interacting with another person only for sex
No, the word "use" means lots of things. To give you an idea, lots of people are OK with people saying "use" in polite, professional contexts, or day time TV, but lots of people would not be OK with "fuck" or "fisting with two hands" in professional contexts. There is a difference between them. If you cannot tell the difference, people might get annoyed at you in many situations.
we should stop using it lest we offend
It is a common retort from people who want to continue to say things that marginalise some minorities to claim that "It's polticial correctness gone mad!" or "you can't say anything anymore!". You've just done that, you're trying to imply that I would have a problem with the word "use" to further your strawman argument that "You can't say anything anymore lest you offend!". No-one's suggesting that there's anything wrong with "use". But there is something wrong with calling anyone who anal bad, or anyone who might engage in receptive sex (i.e. all non-straight-cis-males) bad.
I'm not trying to imply you have a problem with the word "use", I am directly implying that there is some boundary beyond which someone will be offended and you will not be. At which point whose delicate sensibilities should we defer to?
I, for one, take exception that your category of people who enjoy receptive sex seems to be explicitly excluding straight males, such that you've used the exact same "i.e." qualifier twice. It is well within the realm of possibility that a straight male would ask his partner to stimulate his prostate during sex, but you categorically reject that. Are you going to correct your mistake and stop making generalizations? Maybe start using e.g. from now on?
My position is this; it is obvious that the original poster is not making some kind of blanket statement that all people who participate in anal sex are bad, but rather is stating that having a large object in your anus is uncomfortable and having an entity do it to you while you are unwilling is horrible. It's not a statement that was attempting to marginalize minority groups. You are the one who misconstrued it to mean all gay men are evil. Maybe that's why you find people's objections to your attempted control over the English language to be common.
Finally, you seem to be annoyed that I "created a strawman argument" out of you, but you do feel free to contort my statements into "it's political correctness gone mad!", and "you can't say anything anymore!" as well as directly stating that I am someone who "wants to continue to say things that marginalize some minorities". Is ad hominem less of a logical fallacy than making a so-called strawman argument? I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that has such intellectual dishonesty because it's just a waste of time. I am done here and I won't be reading any responses you post, so you can save yourself some time there.
Because of people like this (the straw was Growl installing itself for the third time), I've had to completely change the permissions on particularly vulnerable folders in OS X. Anyone creating software, if you are not already aware of this: installing anything that is not completely and clearly explained beforehand makes you a despicable wretch.
FWIW growl doesn't install itself, applications that use it are _supposed_ to offer to install growl for you, but there's been a few that don't and just force it on you.
The third party applications are using the Growl framework, yes? Did they write the extra code to install Growl? If so, I am sorry. If, as I suspect, they did not, why does the Growl framework not ask the user when that method is invoked?
I can imagine the head scratching over this design decision 500 years in the future when everyone is an AI that has bajillions of files. Or one really unlucky guy tomorrow.
You and I both. If you haven't already seen it there's a book, (Predictably Irrational, IIRC) that gives some scientific studies on why certain manipulations work. You might enjoy that, I did :)
The group of people that use Android and the group of people that are vehemently against Apple overlaps quite a bit, so this boycott costs them nothing. It's a bit of sound and fury slacktivism that makes them all happy but accomplishes nothing.
Malware authors have learned to spell -- many apps I install under the mistaken assumption that they will not run background services or send information back to the company, in fact do.
I also note that Dell's laptop division has a number of malware authors hard at work.
The problem is you will be up against a legal team funded by millions of dollars and they will get you stuck in red tape for years. I don't think a lawyer would take that on commission. And I don't know a lot about it, but I don't think counter-suits are very lucrative in patent law anyway.
