51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand.
"like a little girl" Why not like a little boy? Because Joel thinks women are weaker then men, obviously.
Doesn't change it's effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand.
"like a little girl" Why not like a little boy? Because Joel thinks women are weaker then men, obviously.
Well no or, maybe he does, but you can't infer that from this. What he is referring to is the tendency of little girls to like, OMG, get super excited and make squeally noises.
As a parent of both sexes and having refereed birthday parties for both I can safely say that his analogy was fair and wouldn't have worked if he had said "little boy". Of course, if he had run around the meeting room, screaming at the top of his lungs, trying to break furniture, then he had indeed picked the wrong gender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand.
"like a little girl" Why not like a little boy? Because Joel thinks women are weaker then men, obviously.
That said it could be an artifact of a time where it was acceptable to say that kind of stuff. Like watching old movies reading old articles can be a bit jarring at times. But getting upset with someone for posting it to support a point is unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"like a little girl" Why not like a little boy? Because Joel thinks women are weaker then men, obviously.
It might be more charitable to assume that it's a reference to the perception that women are more emotional. I'm not saying that perception is valid or invalid but it's certainly more neutral than "women are weaker than men". That said it could be an artifact of a time where it was acceptable to say that kind of stuff. Like watching old movies reading old articles can be a bit jarring at times. But getting upset with…
How is the idea that women are "more emotional" than men "more neutral" than the idea that "women are weaker than men".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be more charitable to assume that it's a reference to the perception that women are more emotional. I'm not saying that perception is valid or invalid but it's certainly more neutral than "women are weaker than men". That said it could be an artifact of a time where it was acceptable to say that kind of stuff. Like watching old movies reading old articles can be a bit jarring at times. But getting upset with…
> It might be more charitable to assume that it's a reference to the perception that women are more emotional. I'm not saying that perception is valid or invalid but it's certainly more neutral than "women are weaker than men". How is the idea that women are "more emotional" than men "more neutral" than the idea that "women are weaker than men".
Assuming that your question is meant in good faith, here's an example. I have two sons. One is extremely emotional, far more so than his brother was at that age. He cries over minor incidents, take small slights to heart, gets upset easily, etc. His teacher describes him as "feeling things very deeply."
However, he is also extremely bright and very strong willed. Even at a young age, we can already see that he is not the type of person who will allow himself to be taken advantage of. Despite his sometimes irritating emotionality, there is simply no way I could ever characterize him as weak.
Does that help?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bill Gates licensed something called QDOS which was made by Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products, which Tim had designed to mimick CP/M's API.
I heard somewhere that he bought a CP/M manual at RadioShack and based much of his work off of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's "Kildall". And he hasn't been doing anything for quite some time. He died in the 90's.
Thanks, I fixed the spelling. Though it doesn't really matter what he has been doing recently, my point is that there was no lawsuit back in the '80s when he was alive, so we can safely assume he had no proof of actual infringement. Furthermore, we can infer that what Kildall claimed was "Infringements of CP/M's copyrights" was something more along the lines of what google and oracle are now having massive legal batt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might be more charitable to assume that it's a reference to the perception that women are more emotional. I'm not saying that perception is valid or invalid but it's certainly more neutral than "women are weaker than men". How is the idea that women are "more emotional" than men "more neutral" than the idea that "women are weaker than men".
Hoping this doesn't turn the thread into a male/female thing... Assuming that your question is meant in good faith, here's an example. I have two sons. One is extremely emotional, far more so than his brother was at that age. He cries over minor incidents, take small slights to heart, gets upset easily, etc. His teacher describes him as "feeling things very deeply." However, he is also extremely bright and very stron…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"like a little girl" Why not like a little boy? Because Joel thinks women are weaker then men, obviously.
It might be more charitable to assume that it's a reference to the perception that women are more emotional. I'm not saying that perception is valid or invalid but it's certainly more neutral than "women are weaker than men". That said it could be an artifact of a time where it was acceptable to say that kind of stuff. Like watching old movies reading old articles can be a bit jarring at times. But getting upset with…
To your point, this isn't from 1950 or even 1975. It's recent.