|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
Let's see if I can guess:
You aren't confident enough in your ability to defend yourself from the worse
types of attention that your body naturally attracts. And you ascribe this to
this aspect of yourself, rather than the idiots who have scared you in the past.
This is *not* a purely female problem.
Solution: Learn to defend yourself. Gain some confidence. Carry a gun, if
necessary. (Didn't we have this discussion already?)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
> This *is* offensive.
I wonder if this is a cultural thing?
Over this side of the Atlantic, I expect most people to see it merely as
silly...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
Personally, I find the incident quite funny. What I find funny is that some
people had previously been saying that only "Linux neckbeards" would be so
juvenile as to create code comments or hex constants like the one in question.
Programmers working for proprietary companies were supposedly far too
"professional" for such things.
Now that a major proprietary vendor did
it, we are hearing that the "Linux neckbeards" are juvenile for complaining
about it and "professional" programmers should sit about giggling at the great
wit displayed there.
For myself, when I'm writing software I find that
I'm far too absorbed in what I am doing to think about trying (and failing) to
be "witty". I think a good test for something like this would be "would you want
your 15 year old niece to know that you wrote it"?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
I do not think that women are easily offended. Americans are for anything that
can be construed to be s e x u a l l y offensive. For us in Europe it is only
juvenile, something one grow out of. Anyway 0xB16B00B5 is a stupid name for a
string who is not even formed according to MicroSoft's own published rules. They
seems to be using either very young programmers or someones with faulty morale
education.
It is a bit like a storm in a glass of water. No deluge just a wet table.
It is all crap and not even well formed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tufty on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
Depends on culture. The women of Guadalajara objected to a proposed law against
wolf whistling. One of their comments was 'How do we know if we look good if men
can't whistle at us?'.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
It's also not big news.
In any way.
In fact, it's a way smaller bit of than what Oracle would
like Google to pay for for "infringing." Of _course_ it
should be removed and of _course_ it's offensive--but it's
hidden to everyday users, _and_ it's an adolescent-level
matter that spending almost any time discussing brings the
discusser to the same level. _This_ we waste column inches
on? _This_ is tech news?
There is the old joke about the drunk guy who loses his keys
in the middle of the block but looks for them under the
corner streetlamp because the light is better there. Oh,
boy: Actual written evidence that some people think
offensive thoughts about others. Out, out, darned spot!
Except that spot out or not the perpetrator, and legions
like her, is still thinking things that would offend us, and
will continue to do so. But the light is better out here.
Oh, and the company that promulgates the code containing the
gaffe is a predatory monopoly that has been fined more money
than any of use will ever see in a lifetime for _actual
crimes_ and is on the verge of being so fined again--for a
"mistake" in not offering a browser choice. Do you think
they actually care, or ever will, about how they appear to
_anyone_ , except--maybe--a European commission?
We are _so_ easily baited.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
