Too Busy For A Relationship

Ever heard that one? Ever said that one?

It's highly likely that the person who said it was lying. Yes, that includes you if you said it. Let me explain.

One of my favorite movies is Hitch. Yeah. Hitch. Judge me. The movie opener has this gem: "If she says something like "I'm too busy for a relationship." It either means "try harder" or "get away from me now."

Well I'm paraphrasing. But it's true. Really.

Think about it. Have you ever asked someone who threw that line at you exactly what they were busy doing?

Probably not. Probably because it would seem pushy or desperate. But think about it. It's a legitimate question. Exactly how busy do you have to be to not have "time" for a relationship?

In actuality such a statement reveals a lot about the person who is saying it.

Think about married people. Marriage is a relationship, no? Do married couples say to each other. Well for the next 5 weeks I am waaaaay too busy to be married so we're not married for that time.

Sounds dumb doesn't it? That's the point.

Relationships change in dynamics all the time. You don't STOP having a "relationship" because you're busy, you change the dynamics of a relationship if you are busy.

Therefore it is highly likely that if they aren't telling the truth, that they are in fact too busy for a relationship, as in quarantined in a space capsule for a month or so, they are telling you:

1) They don't like you. Don't want to like you and don't want to "hurt your feelings" by not simply saying, "eh, you don't do it for me."

Or

2) They have no clue what a "relationship" is. In which case they have probably done you a favor.

Think about it what do you "need" for a relationship. Yuu need some mutual affection and to spend quality time together. Notice I said "quality" not "quantity".

If you have time for dinner (in or out). If you have time to work out. If you have time to go to a movie. If you have time for a walk in the park. If you have time for any of that AND time for a fuck buddy. then you, my friend have time for a relationship.

What you may not have time for is a "always up under each other" relationship. But check it. Not only is that not the only form of a relationship it is probably not a good relationship. Seriously. Folks who are always up under each other are probably covering up issues that they have to face when alone. whether it be loneliness, insecurity (can't let them out of sight 'cause they might cheat), etc.

So the next time someone says "I don't have time for a relationship" ask them what makes them so busy? They'll probably be taken aback but you'll know if you're being bullshitted.

Lessons From Millionaire Matchmaker

Yes, I watch Millionaire Matchmaker. Judge me. Nothing like watching dudes fail at a date after watching dudes fail in the Octagon of Ultimate Fighter. Yeah. I watch MMA and Bravo TV. Contradiction. I know. Anyway. Last night's episode was chock full of lessons which I feel compelled to comment on.

First: From the Ultimate Fighter: NEVER. EVER. Drop your guard.

Second: If you watch the show you know that the female millionaire was a returnee who tried to buy the affections of a guy who clearly did not want her. What is her "problem"? Well she's obese. Not that it makes her a bad person. Not that it doesn't maker her not desirable by anyone. But it does mean that there are certain men she is unlikely to have express interest in her. This leads me to my first point:

Why is it that "obese" women who talk all day long about how they are a BBW (Big Beautiful Woman for those unfamiliar) and how they are "real women" because they have "curves" are apparently uninterested in BHM (Big Handsome Men)? Seriously. What is with this contradiction? In my own life I have been "hit on" by a number of women who I consider "obese" who don't give men their size the time of day (unless he has money...an entirely different conversation).

Mind you there are "chubby chasers" out there (I don't actually like the term). So it's not like these women cannot find men who like "all of this". It's simply that if you are a BBW, I think you have no business turning your nose up at BHMs.

So this chick picks a mesomorph of a man (that's a medium build to you non-science folks). He stands her up (which will be addressed later). Who shows up but the man she passed up who happened to be a BHM. Not a 10 by any means, but seriously most men are not 10s...or 8s or 7 for that matter so...

Not only does her face drop off a cliff when this guy shows up with not one but TWO bouquets, her body language was completely "fuck off" for most of the date. What is "fuck off" body language? Well if you must ask, if a woman keeps her distance from you. Doesn't touch you at all and turns her body from you, that is "fuck off" body language.

The poor guy was a "trooper" if you will and continued to be the "gentleman".

Then during dinner, he repeats what he did in the mixer where he basically offered himself as her slave.

"I'll take you to the mall." "I'll carry all your bags." "I'll fix your computer!" Basically everything she did to the last guy minus the "I'll buy your a Maserati".

He tell her how he finds her both mentally AND physically attractive.

Yes. He said that flat out. To her face.

She decides that she doesn't want to see him anymore. They never date again.

The fuck?

That was like a football player seeing the opposite team player drop the football 1 yard from the end zone and deciding "eh" I think we'll wait until it's our turn to receive.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Which brings me to the next lesson:

DUDES! Stop with that "I'll do anything for you" bullshit.

A large proportion of women will see you as a mat and will be turned off by it.

Most women do NOT want a man they can just walk all over and get their way all the time.

Stop that shit.

Read the body language. giggling is easy to fake. Interest is easy to fake. Very few people can actually fake body language. Pay attention.

Next: I want to give credit to ol' girl for cutting dude off. It may seem cruel but it was the right thing to do. He would have been HAPPY as fuck to take her everywhere and be her man-slave. She could have taken advantage of his interest for her own ego. She did not. That was a great thing she did. Kudos.

Now we have to deal with Patty.

I don't know how much of that show is scripted and how much is "real". But Patty made a huge mistake last night. Fistly she was willing to comment that the guy millionaire was picking women "out of his league". She should have said the SAME thing to the woman. She needed to tell ol' girl that these buff guys that she likes are highly unlikely to be interested in her sexually. That SHE was picking men waaaaaaay out of her league.

This is why ol' girl was stood up. Did Patty ask all the men whether they were interested in BBWs? That would and should have been question number O.N.E.

it was so hard to watch this guy treat this woman better than anyone has probably ever treated her before and get shot down. But it simply underscores what I have told many a young man:

Don't do that shit. If she clearly does not want you "like that". Bid her a good night and lose her number and e-mail. You'll thank me when you ARE with someone who is worthy of your efforts.

Man Shaming at The Verge

One Russell Brandom wrote a piece on The Verge entitled "Never mind the hardware, why didn't Sony's PS4 event have any women?" Which was a man shaming piece of crap post that should never have seen the light of day.

Let's start with the subheading:

A boy's club industry is bad for everyone, especially gamers

Bad for everyone? That's a bold statement. Lets assume (incorrectly I might add) that games have been the domain of "boys" since the Atari 2600. This guy actually wants to tell us that all the advances in games since then has been "bad for everyone"? Really? He has no way to support such a statement. The data doesn't support it and of course he doesn't provide any. We're supposed to just believe him because we're supposed to believe that so called "boy's clubs" are inherently bad.

Fuck this dude.

Ok. I'm being harsh. I'm sorry. Russell actually begins with a pretty decent observation:

If you didn't notice, it's probably because there also weren't any female devs or executives onstage at the Wii U launch, or the EA Gamescom event, or the most recent HTC unveiling, or any Apple keynote in recent memory. With an all-male board and executive staff, Apple would have no one to send. In 2013, that should be shocking, but it's so much the industry norm that it's hard to single Sony out as especially egregious. Onstage, this is what the game industry looks like. It just isn't what gamers look like

When you analyze this statement you realize it completely crushed Russell's "boy's club" theory. Why? Because all of the companies he listed as being "boy's clubs" are wildly successful with millions upon millions of happy customers. If "boy's clubs" were inherently "bad for everyone" then it would stand to reason that Apple, among the others listed, would be in dire financial straights.

Then there's this:

According to the Entertainment Software Association, 47 percent of gamers are women — effectively gender parity. But only eleven percent of game industry employees are women, measuring across all departments. It's the same mismatch we saw last night: women in the audience, but none on stage.

The problem with the citation is that the PDF tells us nothing about what these women are purchasing and whether those purchases are relevant to a PS4 Console launch. Why is this important? It is important because "gamer" has been made to include games played on phones and other mobile devices and so just because 47% of "gamers" are female, does not mean that 47% of console users are women. The Mary Sue points out this issue:

The rise of games that can be played on smartphones probably also accounts for a more diverse audience of gamers. People not necessarily attracted to traditional console games have found love with downloadable games like Angry Birds as well as strategy and educational games. In fact, 55 percent of gamers play on portable devices.

I assure you that Angry Birds is not what people are buying consoles for.

Then there are gamers who don’t feel the need to spring for a console and simply use their computers. Online gamers account for 19 percent of the entire gaming audience; puzzle/card/trivia games make up 47 percent of computer-based gaming. Role-playing games and MMOs accounted for 32 percent of computer based games.

Ummm...I said that right? And the PS4 is what? A console? Right. So exactly what are women "gamers" playing the most? Bejeweled, World of Warcraft, Farmville, Crosswords and Sodoku, Cakeshop.

The Times of India reported on women gamers:

Much like everyday life, women are attracted to games with a social element which allow for communicating with other gamers. 43% of women have used social networking games compared to 26% of men.

I'm not going to go on and on about the statistics, but it has been clear to me for a long time that generally speaking, women "game" differently than men. And that's OK. And maybe, just maybe the lack of presence at this particular venue is related to that (though I cannot say for certain). Back to Russell though.

After the badly sourced "statistics" he then gets to the meat of his problem:

It’s why Sony thinks it can get away with sexist ads like this, only to find out too late that it can’t. It’s why you see things like the spectacularly queasy gender politics of this summer’s Hitman: Absolution trailer.

This is part of the man shaming. Men, straight men, like breasts. Straight men like to touch them. I know this comes as a total shock to some people. So the advert is a direct shot at those men. Crude? Perhaps. Sexist? Ha.

Look, I won't take anyone's commentary on "sexist" advertising until I see round condemnations for advertising that features dumb as rocks men next to their wives/girlfriends. Or the adverts where women get to slap (that's assault) the men (who are usually boyfriends or husbands). Or the wildly popular Fiat Abarth advert where the anthropomorphized vehicle slaps the male onlooker. This last advert I saw no less than 6 times in the space of a two hour movie.

As for the Hitman trailer. Le sigh. Of ALL the imagery to get upset about; nuns, a whole lot of violence, THE problem were the scantily clad women. Typical American hypocrisy where violence is OK but breasts? not so much. Russell can pass me on that one. Though I would be interested in how many Hitman customers are women.

And most importantly, it’s why women in the industry were lining up under the #1 reason why a few months ago to share stories of being harrassed or otherwise silenced. The industry alienates its female fans over and over and over. And each time it comes back to the same point: surely, if there were a woman in the room, she would have pointed out that this was a terrible idea. The men should have noticed it too, but clearly they didn’t.

Yes a woman would have pointed out how she would not like so and such. But what is lost on Russell is that simply because a women does not like something does not make it a "terrible idea". And this is the problem. This is the man shaming. This is the "you guys must change for us" entitlement attitude that permeates much of this discussion.

The more "meat":

What's worse for gamers isn't the bad ideas that get through but the good ones that don't. By now, we have a pretty good idea of what a male-dominated game culture can do — a lot of guns, mostly, which is what we saw front-and-center at Sony last night — but it's hard to even imagine the distaff counterpart

Ahh guns. That didn't take long. Well if Russell had bothered to look at the PDF of the "who are gamers" that he linked to earlier he would have noticed a few things:

42% of online games played most often are puzzles, card games, game shows and trivia. Not a gun in sight. 47% of mobile games are of the same type.

Of game console type of games sold in 2011 only 18% of them are shooters. 18%. Sports and racing combined (no weapons of any type) outrank shooters. Add "family and you have 38% of the console games sold being non weapon games.

By units sold "Just Dance" was the second most sold game.

Clearly then Russell's "boy's club" that only produces "mostly guns" is total and utter bullshit.

More importantly, even if shooters represented the vast majority of so called "boy's club" products. Who is Russell (or anybody else) to pass judgment on that form of entertainment? I don't pass judgment on women who spend hours upon hours living a double life in The Sims or girls playing My Little Pony on their Nintendo DS. It's not my business what they spend their time doing. I. Don't. Care.

but the truth is, gaming culture is so relentlessly male that it's hard to imagine games outside of it Well Russell has a poor imagination then. Perhaps he's too used to "feminists" telling him what to think. *smirk*

The result is a lot of boring games with different variations on the same testosterone-fueled themes.

Because of course "testosterone-fueled" themes are "bad". Russell could have made his case without the completely unnecessary swipes at males. He could have asked the same questions about the presence of women in the presentation by simply pointing to their use of games and how Sony intended (or not) to appeal to this growing market. That's a perfectly fine line to take. But count me in on the group of men who will no longer tolerate being "shamed" for being marketed to or for choosing to play with my fellow gents if I so chose. And yes, I agree, the "armour" on most of these female characters is quite stupid.

A Second Note on Alfredo

Progressive techies favor Free and Open Source Software because the collaboration needed to produce software means its ownership can’t be restricted. Companies believe in proprietary software because they’ve built their wealth stealing people’s thinking, claiming ownership over it, and then re-selling it to people.

Let's be serious here for a moment. I am a proponent of open source software. I use it. I modify it. However I also know a few things: Many "open source" developers do so after working a 9-5 (or whatever hours) at someone elses company in order to pay the bills. They do not, like paid product developers, make a living off of the product they produce.

Since they do not make money off the products they produce a great deal of OSS simply sucks and cease to exist not too long after they are created. There are plenty of exceptions but anyone being honest about it knows this to be the case.

Many "open source" developers live with their parents who pay the costs of living in the not-so-free world. It's all nice and cute to chuck stones at "bad" corporations when you live off of other people's 9-5, but it is not a good argument against such corporations. I am far more inclined to listen to an OSS developer who actually makes a living supporting his or herself and his or her family off the "sweat of their brow" rather than at the expense of the people who end up paying for them to "live their principles".

Look, I read Counterpunch. Every year they ask for donations from their readers, something on the order of 80K. I'm not sure how much they make over the year, but Counterpunch not only provides "free" material (paid for by those donations I'm sure) but they have a subscriber only newsletter (not so free).

I "pay" for Black Agenda report monthly. The information people get on that site is "free" insomuch that persons who "donate" allow the site to continue to operate. The point is that "free" only goes so far. People have to be compensated for their efforts or end up living off those who are. That's how it works. I'm more inclined to compensate someone for their efforts, than to bandwagon for those who live off those who are compensated.

Among my folks we call such attitudes as "free-ism" and we don't mean it kindly.

Should corporations be fair and responsible with their profiteering? Absolutely. None of the above is a rationalization for exploitation. But not all business is exploitation.

I Hope Alfredo Lopez is Not Your Lawyer

Alfredo Lopez wrote an incredulous piece for Counterpunch (who I must admit have run some very questionable articles since the passing of Alexander Cockburn). In this piece he tried to legitimize the theft of JStore material as "doing a public good".

Swartz was a 26-year-old programmer and Internet activist whose accomplishments would be stellar for a person three times his age. He wrote many programs that are now used routinely on the Internet and its servers, he helped build resource websites to gather and provide those kinds of resources to people who needed them and he was active in organizing around issues of freedom and access. In the techie universe, he was a blazing super-star.

Hey guess what? We appreciate that. Glad he was willing to do it.

Like every committed progressive techie, Aaron Swartz believed that information should be accessible to everyone and, over the years, he campaigned against information hoarding and restriction and took concrete actions that dramatized that important issue.

Hmmm, I'm going to pass on judging on what exactly makes for a "committed progressive techie" but I will say that if one believes that information should be accessible to everyone, then do feel FREE to give away all the information you have created and amassed to the public. Nobody is stopping you. What you do NOT have the right to do is take someone elses information and "free" it without their permission.

One day he walked into a server room at MIT (to which he had full, legal access) and set up a small device that captured files from a server belonging to JSTOR, a private company that was selling downloadable scholarly papers and materials for a dime a page.

Not that I know the exact details of the events but since I work in information systems I can say with certainty that unless on is in fact employed by the university and specifically the information systems staff you do NOT have a legal right to enter an equipment closet. NOR do you (a student or faculty member) have the right to connect a random device in said closet for the purposes of intercepting network traffic. I assure you that you will be expelled and referred for criminal prosecution. Trust me on this one.

(This, by the way, is not money that goes to the actual creators of the materials in question. It goes to JSTOR and MIT. For the most part, the copyright laws are being used to enrich corporations, not creators, as publishers and employers routinely require the creators, on an entortionate take-it-or-leave-it basis, to sign over their control of copyright when they sign a publishing contract or an employment contract.)

Here is Alfredo's real meat. He thinks that "corporations" ought not be paid. That's his business to think so, but I'm certain the people who work for JSTore, including those persons who maintain the servers, would very much like to be compensated for their efforts. Perhaps Alfredo thinks that persons such as myself should simply work for free. I'm certain Alfredo would pay my bills and pay for my retirement.

Aaron downloaded everything without paying a penny, thereby violating JSTOR’s “terms of service” (the rules governing your interaction with the server). People at MIT can download stuff off that server for free but they can’t download it to redistribute it, and so MIT’s administration turned Aaron into the Feds, claiming that’s what he was going to do.

I'm not entirely sure what the financial arrangement is between JSTORE and MIT. I'm almost certain that such access is not "free". There is nothing "free". Servers are not free. Internet connections are not "free". Staff do not work for "free". There are real costs associated with a JSTore and someone, somewhere is paying for it. In the case of public institutions it is likely the taxpayer. It may be some corporation. Who knows. But I assure Mr. Alfredo that JSTore is not "free".

Let me inform Mr. Alfredo that any member of the public can enter a library, including university libraries and for no fee (at the libraries I have seen) get access to each and every online database at no cost to them. The user will find professional librarians willing to assist them. They will find student technology workers, paid by taxpayers, tuition and fees, to assist them in using the computers. If they download a document from JSTore or any other publication, they can put it in cloud storage and read it on any device they wish.

If they are doing research they can quote quite liberally from the accessed text, and provide a citation whereby other interested parties can go and find the article for themselves

For themselves is what this comes down to. Alfredo and his ilk want lazy people to be able to have shit delivered to them on a platter without effort. They do not want anyone to profit from their efforts whether it be the originators of information or providers of conduits to it.

One doesn't have to agree with the extent to which MIT and the government went after Aaron Swartz. But not agreeing with it does not mean that one has to make inaccurate statements about the legality of Swartz's actions or the actual nature of the information which he was allegedly "liberating".

And if you want information and don't want to pay for it, visit a library.

Who's It For?

From Gizmodo:

Do you become blind with rage when your iPhone 5 notifies you that the battery is low? If you do, then this is most likely for you.

I might become anxious, but "blind with rage"? I suggest therapy would be better than a battery pack.