> If the elements are already the program will perform fewer operations. On the contrary, if the items are in reverse order, it will require more swap operations to get it sorted.
I think you're missing a word in the first sentence.
"But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it."
There have always been unions that organized in a manner that avoids this situation. (The CNT, the IWW, the Zapatistas (1990s) and, more.) In fact, this act of holding on to power has always been one of the major Anarchist critiques of Marxism. And, Anarchists were very present in the unions of the early 1900s.
One of Capitalism's and Authoritative Communism's finest achievements has been burying the history of unions. They've done it so well that many current unions are unaware of alternative power structures.
I cannot remember having any trouble playing DVDs on a Linux based system within the last decade. Through this time, I've used: Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, Arch and, Suse. If your distro doesn't come with DVD playing capabilities out of the box, there are plenty of instructions regarding this on the the web.
I have a hard time seeing how you could possibly be being honest about this.
I have a hard time seeing how you could possibly be being honest about this.
Isn't distributing libdvdcss illegal in the US and therefore most distributions don't include it? So, most distributions don't come with full DVD playing capabilities out of the box.
This. This is the reason for parent's complaint - it's legal, not technical. I have exactly the same experience of "30 mins hacking to make a new system play DVDs" - sure, it's a single package install usually, but which package? libdvdread? libdvdcss? Does the package include the library, or does it contain a script that downloads the library because of the legal issue? I know the answers to these questions on Debian because I use it so much (and it has a well updated wiki), but plonk me in front of a distro I've not used before, or with poor documentation for their particular idiosyncratic way of end-running the law, and suddenly it's a minefield.
I should have been clearer, I guess. Yes, there's some legal issue but - a google search is not illegal. The poster was saying he/she has to go through some lengthy process every time he/she wants to watch a DVD? That's the dishonesty I'm talking about. Getting dvd playback working in a distro is a do it once and forget about it until EOL type thing.
I'm a male that worked with a feminist group about a decade ago. What I learned is that there are spaces/initiatives where men are welcome and, ones where they are not. As in any human relationship - respect of boundaries is key.
Like alaithea said, if you're not welcome in one space - you may be in another. You could also start your own initiative but, remember that top down decision making in the name of helping a group has alienated groups and stifled progress many times before.
I'm just baffled by this comment. You seem to mean as in "these women are setting a double standard, see!". As in, the cure these women are proposing is just more of the disease.
However, it implies you think that the women told "you are not welcome here" is currently a solved problem, a thing of the past, and that they don't actually face any scenarios were they are told "you are not welcome here". Or, at the very least, that there are more "girls clubs" than "boys clubs", so that you'd have to imagine the girls clubs as boys clubs to "see the problem".
There are many, many more de-facto boys clubs than girls clubs, and they usually afford much higher status in society.
It does none of the sort. It correctly points out a double standard in supposed progressive culture and that's it. As for "clubs":
> "Putting on a man-tailored suit with shoulder pads and imitating all the worst behavior of men? This is the noblest thing that women can think of?"
-- George Carlin
But hey, what good old George surely didn't realize (being such a sexist as he was who would never make a whole track ranting just about how bad ass women are), is that "they did it first, they are doing it more". Very inspiring.
Yeah, I also say it's more of the same. Support and safe spaces are one thing, using them as fig leaves for some rather more sinister another. There are grey areas and who can draw the line and yadda yadda, but that doesn't mean there are not several "poles" to this stuff, very distinct things, some of them using the language and issues of others to cloak themselves.
Is it like communism? You have all these girl clubs to counter all these boys clubs, then ???, and then a society of humans who have first names and other fancy stuff and have grown beyond identity politics? At what point, exactly, would a vehicle for power and double standards cease to be one? All you said is that boys club's are worse - okay, granted, but if the proposed solution, is to make girls clubs just as bad and powerful, if looking any further than that is too "baffling" to even consider -- then what?
You really got caught up in your rant, but nothing up there in my post is a defense of said clubs. I'm not a fan of them, and my post wasn't about them.
The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist.
Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine.
You may not have defended it, but you also didn't criticize it. So I added that, like draping garlic about, to increase the safety of this space.
> The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist.
I know that, and I resent that as well. But I see nothing in the comment you replied to to indicate that at all, they probably weren't thinking of ALL kinds of groups that exist, but merely advocacy ones etc. I don't know, but why presume either way on this little data? You basically said the poster implied "exactly" that they are reactionary and in denial. Maybe you two have history, but this is a really odd style of discussion to me.
> Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine.
Yeah, we don't have to imagine it, and "we" for any given "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company. Hence the same reaction to girls clubs, at least where it crosses the line from immediate safe space and support to political outlook and whatnot.
In that sense, there is kind of a double standard, there are plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women do it, but would instantly recognize it for what it is in other contexts. Hence an allergic reaction to anything that might contain it and doesn't contain proof it doesn't. I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little.
funny you find my style odd. I find your weird professorial affectation over pretty standard anti-feminist fare really off-putting myself. it's like you've read a million posts about "sjws" and are trying really hard to pretend like you haven't. "we" for any given "we" - c'mon dude.
anyway,
- "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company
- plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women [discriminate]
- I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little.
It seems like your "polite company" is very outspoken about condemning what they imagine is distant and cartoonish sexism, and yet they have no problem characterizing women organizing as "cute" in your presence. Maybe your polite company hasn't allowed you to glean enough insight into how sexism manifests itself today, because bringing that up as an example of how women are favored seems completely out of touch.
Maybe one day you'll drop the defensive and charitably try to understand why these organizations happen in the first place.
I think you're missing a word in the first sentence.