Sexism in technical literature

[VK3DRB]

Freedom and liberty are some of the first things lost when equality is enforced.

Freedom is not being enslaved or imprisoned. Freedom is lost when there is inequality. Most people don't know what freedom is; especially those who think they have it.

Those workers in the US who lost their jobs and then their houses after the GFC, whilst the rich were being rewarded with bailout money, don't know freedom. Those financially destitute workers who have no jobs whilst the super rich have gotten a lot richer in the last 5 years, don't know freedom. People who have to live in fear of some social misfit shooting little children kids in a primary school are not free either. Having 1% of your population in jail is definitely not freedom.

As far as speech goes, the American do have free speech to some extent. But more free speech is you are rich enough to lobby Congress, or own the media. No one listens to a poor man.

[dannyf]

Most people don't know what freedom is; especially those who think they have it.

What is freedom then?

[madshaman]

What a heated debate.  I want to ask, how many people talking about third world and oppressed countries have actually been to them and lived there?

(And I'm not talking about landing and hiding out in a tourist hotel to be bussed to outtings; it's a great way to see some natural wonders, but will give you the wrong idea).

I only mention this because I consistently encounter people who believe they know what's up with these places, but have zero idea of what these places are truly like; watching a documentary or reading websites will not give you remotely the right idea.

You can't know until you've been, and honestly, once you've been, you'll be unable to properly describe what things are *really* like to anyone else; they always get the wrong idea because the pictures in their heads come from television, heated debates in lecture halls, or reading studies second-hand.

I would say that the majority of poverty is due to tyrannical governments with absolute power, and these governments are SUPPORTED by nations like the USA and China, they are called "democratic" when they are not, and in exchange for this, American and Chinese interests (among others) have carte blanche to move in and pillage the county's natural resources.

I've seen this with my own eyes...

The effect of the tyranny is that there is virtually no infrastructure (education, clean water, road repair, parks departments) for the people, because there doesn't need to be, all parties with power are getting what they want, and WE are directly benefitting from this setup.

[zapta]

I would say that the majority of poverty is due to tyrannical governments with absolute power, and these governments are SUPPORTED by nations like the USA and China, they are called "democratic" when they are not, and in exchange for this, American and Chinese interests (among others) have carte blanche to move in and pillage the county's natural resources.

It's the old blame-america-first routine. A very common narrative by the lefties. Let me guess, those third world countries were flourishing democracies before the US got involved.

Take real examples like Italy, Germany and Japan. The US set a democratic regimes and let them go free just as it did in Iraq. It's not the US, it's the political culture of those countries.

[vk6zgo]

I would say that the majority of poverty is due to tyrannical governments with absolute power, and these governments are SUPPORTED by nations like the USA and China, they are called "democratic" when they are not, and in exchange for this, American and Chinese interests (among others) have carte blanche to move in and pillage the county's natural resources.

It's the old blame-america-first routine. A very common narrative by the lefties. Let me guess, those third world countries were flourishing democracies before the US got involved.

Take real examples like Italy, Germany and Japan. The US set a democratic regimes and let them go free just as it did in Iraq. It's not the US, it's the political culture of those countries.

The examples you give are substantially pre Cold War,although the onset of that conflict allowed some War Criminals to escape justice.
(Who cares if they are Psychopaths?,They're our Psychopaths!)

During the Cold War period,the USA & the old USSR supported some  pretty horrific Governments,including,on the USA side,Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq,&,on the USSR side,that of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

Of course,the UK & France also got into the act,"white-anting" popular democratic Governments who didn't think giving away their resources for a pittance was a good thing,& in some cases,actively being involved in their overthrow.

It was a fine time for Dictators,though,all they needed was to pretend to "tilt" towards one Bloc,for the other one to be there offering all sorts of inducements.
All those high tech weapons came in very handy for suppressing  internal opposition,too!

The USSR even helped the Argentinian Junta in the Falklands/Malvinas War with satellite intelligence.
This,at a time when the Junta was murdering Democrats,Socialists,& Communists in their hundreds.

Of course,the PRC was there,too,supporting one of the most evil regimes of modern times in the form of the Khmer Rouge---they make North Korea look like a holiday camp!

Poor old Saddam didn't realise the game had changed when he invaded Kuwait iprior to the the 1993 war.
The USSR just sat back & didn't interfere when Desert Storm erupted.

People talk a lot of crap about the 2003 Iraq War-----If Dubya had wanted Iraq's oil,he could have made a separate agreement with Saddam to take all the oil they could produce,& broken the back of OPEC at the same time.
George was never that devious a man,though!----I'm sure Richard Nixon in a similar position,would have thought about it!

Of course,the biggest mistake was in thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"!
All sorts  of "spivs" were waiting in the wings to take over in Iraq,whilst the "Heroic Mujihadeen" who fought the USSR in Afghanistan quickly morphed into the Taliban!

[dannyf]

(Who cares if they are Psychopaths?,They're our Psychopaths!)

Not a bad strategy if you are going to start a war.

If Dubya had wanted Iraq's oil,

The left never understood that war.

morphed into the Taliban!

The neocons and the taliban, two diametrically opposing groups, are fundamentally the same: they want to impose their value-system onto others. In the case of Neocon, they believed that democracy is good for the people they are trying to "liberate", no matter if they want democracy or not; The Taliban thinks the same: they think that fundamental Islam is good for the people, regardless if the people like it or not.

Neither group truly understood what democracy is, or what freedom is. The taliban is illiterately ignorant; The neocons are literally ignorant.

[madshaman]

I would say that the majority of poverty is due to tyrannical governments with absolute power, and these governments are SUPPORTED by nations like the USA and China, they are called "democratic" when they are not, and in exchange for this, American and Chinese interests (among others) have carte blanche to move in and pillage the county's natural resources.

It's the old blame-america-first routine. A very common narrative by the lefties. Let me guess, those third world countries were flourishing democracies before the US got involved.

Actually, I'm not talking about the Middle-East.

I also think it's naive to think of people in terms of left or right.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with trying to be socially responsible, we are a social species and we share a finite planet.

Take real examples like Italy, Germany and Japan. The US set a democratic regimes and let them go free just as it did in Iraq. It's not the US, it's the political culture of those countries.

I've been to Japan, but not Germany.  What qualifies as a real example for you?  I was thinking of East Africa, and my experience there taught me that, like with many things, nothing beats first-hand experience, if you have some of this to share, it's an opportunity to learn more.

[zapta]

The examples you give are substantially pre Cold War,although the onset of that conflict allowed some War Criminals to escape justice.
(Who cares if they are Psychopaths?,They're our Psychopaths!)

During the Cold War period,the USA & the old USSR supported some  pretty horrific Governments,including,on the USA side,Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq,&,on the USSR side,that of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

Of course,the UK & France also got into the act,"white-anting" popular democratic Governments who didn't think giving away their resources for a pittance was a good thing,& in some cases,actively being involved in their overthrow.

It was a fine time for Dictators,though,all they needed was to pretend to "tilt" towards one Bloc,for the other one to be there offering all sorts of inducements.
All those high tech weapons came in very handy for suppressing  internal opposition,too!

The USSR even helped the Argentinian Junta in the Falklands/Malvinas War with satellite intelligence.
This,at a time when the Junta was murdering Democrats,Socialists,& Communists in their hundreds.

Of course,the PRC was there,too,supporting one of the most evil regimes of modern times in the form of the Khmer Rouge---they make North Korea look like a holiday camp!

Poor old Saddam didn't realise the game had changed when he invaded Kuwait iprior to the the 1993 war.
The USSR just sat back & didn't interfere when Desert Storm erupted.

People talk a lot of crap about the 2003 Iraq War-----If Dubya had wanted Iraq's oil,he could have made a separate agreement with Saddam to take all the oil they could produce,& broken the back of OPEC at the same time.
George was never that devious a man,though!----I'm sure Richard Nixon in a similar position,would have thought about it!

Of course,the biggest mistake was in thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"!
All sorts  of "spivs" were waiting in the wings to take over in Iraq,whilst the "Heroic Mujihadeen" who fought the USSR in Afghanistan quickly morphed into the Taliban!

Interesting, in your long rant you blame everybody except for the locals that keep killing and oppressing each other. This is very typical for the left, they stick to their successful-bad-unsuccessful-good narrative while ignoring facts and misplacing the blame.

[vk6zgo]

The examples you give are substantially pre Cold War,although the onset of that conflict allowed some War Criminals to escape justice.
(Who cares if they are Psychopaths?,They're our Psychopaths!)

During the Cold War period,the USA & the old USSR supported some  pretty horrific Governments,including,on the USA side,Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq,&,on the USSR side,that of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

Of course,the UK & France also got into the act,"white-anting" popular democratic Governments who didn't think giving away their resources for a pittance was a good thing,& in some cases,actively being involved in their overthrow.

It was a fine time for Dictators,though,all they needed was to pretend to "tilt" towards one Bloc,for the other one to be there offering all sorts of inducements.
All those high tech weapons came in very handy for suppressing  internal opposition,too!

The USSR even helped the Argentinian Junta in the Falklands/Malvinas War with satellite intelligence.
This,at a time when the Junta was murdering Democrats,Socialists,& Communists in their hundreds.

Of course,the PRC was there,too,supporting one of the most evil regimes of modern times in the form of the Khmer Rouge---they make North Korea look like a holiday camp!

Poor old Saddam didn't realise the game had changed when he invaded Kuwait iprior to the the 1993 war.
The USSR just sat back & didn't interfere when Desert Storm erupted.

People talk a lot of crap about the 2003 Iraq War-----If Dubya had wanted Iraq's oil,he could have made a separate agreement with Saddam to take all the oil they could produce,& broken the back of OPEC at the same time.
George was never that devious a man,though!----I'm sure Richard Nixon in a similar position,would have thought about it!

Of course,the biggest mistake was in thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"!
All sorts  of "spivs" were waiting in the wings to take over in Iraq,whilst the "Heroic Mujihadeen" who fought the USSR in Afghanistan quickly morphed into the Taliban!

Interesting, in your long rant you blame everybody except for the locals that keep killing and oppressing each other. This is very typical for the left, they stick to their successful-bad-unsuccessful-good narrative while ignoring facts and misplacing the blame.

Left,my bum!!

The "Right" obviously have a problem with comprehension!

Right throughout my "rant" the common theme was that of local Totalitarian regimes playing the Major Powers off against each other.

Many of these countries did have politically moderate people in charge at times.

The West,or the USSR did not think these Governments were in concert with their plans,so they helped Dictators into power.
This does not mean that the Dictators would not have attained power in some other way,just that they knew how to work the system.
The Major Powers can't get away "scot-free",though,as their interference facilitated the rise of these people,often for some fleeting.or purely imagined,advantage.

There was little or no coherence in the approaches by the Major Powers over the years,whereas all the Dictators needed to do was concentrate on staying in power.

During the years leading up to WW2,Dictatorships were common in Europe,as was oppression.
Did the people of those countries all "oppress each other"as part of their culture?
Did the people of the USSR?

No,they were oppressed by Totalitarian Governments,who gained power by violence,chicanery and lies,plus in some cases,help from Foreign Powers.

Such help was much less likely to come from the USA than from the European Powers in those days.

In fact,the USA was a promoter of Democratic Governments in the very early Post war years.
It has now returned,although in a muddled sort of way,to the spirit,if not always the practice of that policy.

[zapta]

vk6zgo, you can bring the donkey to the water but you cannot force it to drink. Some cultures are incompatible with democracy and plurality and it does not help if somebody takes their dictator down, they will keep killing each other and will form of authoritarian government (e.g. see the recent example in Egypt). It's up the locals to establish a lawful and tolerant society but the left typically rush to blame the US.

[vk6zgo]

vk6zgo, you can bring the donkey to the water but you cannot force it to drink. Some cultures are incompatible with democracy and plurality and it does not help if somebody takes their dictator down, they will keep killing each other and will form of authoritarian government (e.g. see the recent example in Egypt). It's up the locals to establish a lawful and tolerant society but the left typically rush to blame the US.

There is nothing inherent in Egypt's culture that causes this behaviour,but over 50 years of Dictatorship does leave its mark.
We were fed the same line about  Indonesia & the Philippines,but they eventually found their way back to a Democratic form of
Government------sometimes a flawed version,but a long way from a Dictatorship!

The "left" is a very broad section of society in any country.

Of course,you have the "Conspiracy nuts" who see the hand of the CIA or NSA in everything that happens,but most of us know that very few have anything directly to do with the USA.

The "right" have the same sort of people,(Especially in the USA) who are sure it's all the fault of the "liberals",but many are sensible normal people.

The point we need to make to Americans is,"It's not all about you!"

People in other countries do nasty things to each other,& Foreign Nations connive with dictators,whether the USA is involved or not,& by and large,they don't care if you approve or disapprove!
If they can manipulate you,that's an added bonus.

The dear old "People's Republic" have their fingers in quite a few messy pies throughout the world,but it suits the "left" & "right" in most countries to ignore this,as Chinese trade is so important.

[VK3DRB]

Communism meets extreme capitalism at the lowest common denominator - money, power and privilege in the hands of a few.

A good documentary to watch or book to read is Robert Reich's "Inequality For All". It highlights how having large wealth in the hands of the greedy few is the reason for the economic woes such as the GFC.

A billionaire only needs 4 pairs of jeans. If that obscene wealth was shared among 10,000 people, you would need 40,000 pairs of jeans.

[dannyf]

A good documentary to watch or book to read is Robert Reich's "Inequality For All". ...

I hope those advocates of equality should start taking actions on their own, rather than telling us to cure inequality for them. Warren, Reich and Piketty are a good starting point,

A billionaire only needs 4 pairs of jeans.

And anyone should have no more than 1 DT830 meter; Or no more than 1hr of internet connection per month; Or 10 square meters of dwelling space; Or $2 income per day; ...

Comparing to those poor folks in Africa or Asia or Amazon, ..., 99.999999% of the population are effectively "billionaires" and top 0.001%.

Let's start bring down inequality there.



Those crazy talks of "inequality" have one goal: to make everyone poor. Look at Europe, America over the last 200 years, and Russia / China over the last 30 years. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything in human history. Yes, it is not perfect. But it has been very effective.

[madshaman]

A good documentary to watch or book to read is Robert Reich's "Inequality For All". ...

I hope those advocates of equality should start taking actions on their own, rather than telling us to cure inequality for them. Warren, Reich and Piketty are a good starting point,

A billionaire only needs 4 pairs of jeans.

And anyone should have no more than 1 DT830 meter; Or no more than 1hr of internet connection per month; Or 10 square meters of dwelling space; Or $2 income per day; ...

Comparing to those poor folks in Africa or Asia or Amazon, ..., 99.999999% of the population are effectively "billionaires" and top 0.001%.

Let's start bring down inequality there.



Those crazy talks of "inequality" have one goal: to make everyone poor. Look at Europe, America over the last 200 years, and Russia / China over the last 30 years. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything in human history. Yes, it is not perfect. But it has been very effective.

+1

I definitely agree that for anyone on this planet for whom life has many disadvantages, it's up to that individual to do something about it.

In my limited experience in the third world, I've seen a majority people fall into a few groups (this is in an area not currently in crises due to disease or water-shortage), one that learned helplessness and just do the minimum required to exist in their current situation.  One that consists mainly of women looking to become the wife or mistress of a foreigner (I don't mean to enrage anyone, I think this causes these people to devalue themselves). And one group that hustles, either by the very definition of the word or by working hard to rise in their jobs and provide their children with a proper education (which costs a LOT for these people vs their income).

Of the three groups, the last group worked the hardest, BUT, they were general much friendlier and happy and almost never exhibited racist behaviour (in East Africa, it's white people, chinese and indians who are the "out group"). 

The other groups generally had a more sour demeanour, complained more and blamed foreigners (ANY foreigner) for their problems; surprisingly they also had the largest sense of entitlement and had no qualms about ripping off "mzungus" because we're all rich (I'd say the average North American only has about 3x the spending power of a native, based on the cost of living while there).

I see this everywhere, usually the people who complain the most and want the most are the ones doing the very least to change their circumstances.

That being said, cultural factors are definitely a hurdle.  For example, despite television commercials (and setting aside problems wrt drinking water and malaria) East Africa is teaming with food and the climate doesn't require shelter as in colder countries, so agriculture and indeed the sort of forward planning required to plant, harvest and store food is NOT deeply ingrained in these people.  Most people don't have the same sense of urgency for being on time and find planning ahead more than a few days silly.  This is NOT lack of intelligence and something you can only understand by dealing with these people, these kind of concepts are literally foreign to their inner world; unfortunately these are the same concepts required to build an infrastructure similar to the first world.

Another cultural example is that these people are very big on sharing (this does not prevent some from being very greedy and entitled).  There was one woman who had risen to the top of her institution (I can't divulge details) and was making a very good salary; she resigned.  The reason?  She could no longer afford her rent.  Her family demanded that she share her good fortune to such an extent that she was actually poorer than if she were working at an entry level position.  You may wonder why she didn't just say "no", and that's the problem, she could no more say "no" in that situation than you or I (or some of us) could expect our more successful relatives to simply give us money.

Finally, I want to clarify at least what *I* meant by the interference of first world powers: by giving support, (perhaps mostly financial), to Tyrannical governments in exchange for natural resources or facilitating the installation of other types of corporate international development (which, have no illusions, are usually highly profitable ventures) they not only make it more difficult for these people to take their own destiny into their hands, but in many cases actively act against these forces because at the end of the day it will demolish their bottom-lines.

For me it's not about blame, they have to do their part, the part that's under their control, and we have to do ours to, because in the first world, I really do believe we're in *part* responsible for the situation.

I guess my final point is that if one truly feels strongly about these issues, one should be taking real action in one's life to help change it.

[zapta]

And anyone should have no more than 1 DT830 meter;

+1

I am tired of the inequality in these forums, both in equipment and skills.

[vk6zgo]

And anyone should have no more than 1 DT830 meter;

+1

I am tired of the inequality in these forums, both in equipment and skills.

Back in the day,the Communist agitator was addressing a (dwindling) crowd:-

He saw a Rolls-Royce drive by,& saw a "teaching moment":-
"When "the Day of Freedom" comes,you ,too will have a car llike that1"

One old bloke spoke up:-
"I don't like big cars!"

The agitator looked around,& there was a nice big house:-
"When "the Day of Freedom" comes,you will have a house like that!"

"I don't like big houses!"

& so it went.......

Until the Agitator had had enough!:-

"Look,Mate,when "the Day of Freedom" comes,you'll do as you're bloody well told!!"



Do I have to have a DT830,when I am quite happy with my Fluke 77?

[Stonent]

I want companies to do well so they'll hire more people and so their stock will go up, so my retirement account will gain value. 

[zapta]

...
"Look,Mate,when "the Day of Freedom" comes,you'll do as you're bloody well told!!"

Yes, that's socialism.

Typically people compare capitalism vs socialism. I see it more as personal liberty vs socialism. Capitalism is just a typical outcome when people are free.

[dannyf]

Do I have to have a DT830,when I am quite happy with my Fluke 77?

I am afraid not: a Fluke 77 is so 100-percenter-ish; it is unequal, and unfair to the DT830 owners; it presents an unfair and unnecessary competitive advantage; it discourages the DT830 folks; ...

If you insist on using that Fluke 77, you have to make sure that it reads EQUALLY as inaccurately as a DT830.



The equality talk is about getting everyone equally poor; not about getting everyone equally better off.

As a being, we have been there, we have done that. Yet, some of us are willfully and skillfully blind to that.

[vk6zgo]

...
"Look,Mate,when "the Day of Freedom" comes,you'll do as you're bloody well told!!"

Yes, that's socialism.

Typically people compare capitalism vs socialism. I see it more as personal liberty vs socialism. Capitalism is just a typical outcome when people are free.

It's not like being "a little bit pregnant"-----there's a lot of difference between Communism & the type of "Socialism' which was common in many countries run by Social Democrats.

Some things were regarded as best run by the Government,& everything else was run by Private Enterprise.
In many cases,old style Conservatives agreed to a large extent,& when in power,would just "tinker round the edges".

When both sides of politics lurched to the Right,"everything" had to be run by the Private Sector.
In pursuit of that objective,public assets were sold off at Fire Sale prices.

Of course,the loss making services were now subsidised directly,instead of cross-subsidised from the profitable ones.


You don't need personal liberty for Capitalism to exist.
It did quite well in a number of Dictatorships for many years.

Private firms in Nazi Germany were grateful beneficaries of the Slave Labour campaign.

That's why I make a distinction between Free Enterprise & Capitalism.

If you wanted to start a business in Nazi Germany ,& were not in with the Nazi elite,you wouldn't stand a chance ,& if you persisted,would probably have ended up in a Concentration camp.

So,no personal liberty,no business startup,no Free Enterprise.

Meanwhile large Private Sector  firms like I.G.Farben prospered.

[GeoffS]

If it's not about Sexism in technical literature, it doesn't belong in this thread.

[vk6zgo]

If it's not about Sexism in technical literature, it doesn't belong in this thread.

 Sorry,Geoff,but I think that pretty much went "walkies" after Page 5.

I was going to bale out,anyway,we've argued everything down to the ground,& will never agree!

[miguelvp]

To get us back on topic: http://hackaday.com/2014/05/16/augmented-reality-with-an-fpga/#comment-1470201

Skeptical explains the problem well.

What I find it's really strange is that the OP's post doesn't really show sexism other than his/her view.

Hello,
currently I am reading An introduction to parallel programming book and it's about how to program and stuff, you know, in strict technical terminology. And when author wants to say something like: the user writes this and that, program works like this... And this is writen from a women perspective (in my mind it means like "stupid" first time user of something)

One of the purposes of MPI_Init is to define a communicator that consists of all of the processes started by the user when she started the program.

And these references are everywhere in the book. I am not native english speaker and I find it funny and sexist I suppose 
What do you think about this, is it common in technical literature? I don't read it much in english and come across it for the first time.

[vk6zgo]

I was told "keep it impersonal",so "he","she","we","you" were out!

It is reasonably easy to describe the operation of a circuit,or give instructions on operation,or testing,of a device,but perhaps harder in describing programming.

[dannyf]

the OP's post doesn't really show sexism other than his/her view.

Not unusual: often times accusations of this nature reflect more on the accuser than the accused.