I have returned from the 16th century! If I missed anything in the last week that you think I really should have read/seen then link it to me here (I have tried to catch up on stuff, but probably missed some things).

(no subject)

Informal poll;

If I were to say to you "let us get afternoon tea?" what would you think I meant by that? Er, I mean to say 'what do you think afternoon tea is, practically speaking' not 'what do you think this means about my relationship with you'. English, the language of unclearness.

No comments here, go to dreamwidth; LJ users can log in with open ID here .


I appear to be missing
a)Nightwatch (PTerry)
b)three Reynolds novels (revelation space + two sequels), paperback.

If you have them please own up...

(I suck at remembering what I have done with things)

ETA: found the Reynolds (I suck).

(no subject)

My new 'phone now has my old number. So 'phoning me will now work again.

On the SSH subject:- I've figured out the logging, it is finding chiark in the DNS but then timing out when trying to connect to it. I called O2 and they said that SSH isn't blocked by them. *sniff* why won't it work?

On different technical grrrr:- I can connect it to my computer at work via USB, this works fine (on Windows), of course it couldn't be that simple on Debian at home... (I don't know what sort of file system it is, oh well, I'll just have to take the USB cable back to work).

In entirely different news I finished one pair of socks and have acquired some more proto-sock. Socks are just the right size to knit in front of the computer.

(no subject)

Naamah makes a nice post here about misogyny (warning, it's kinda sweary maybe NWS and your W). Anyway I wanted to pick up on a small part of it.

here's a widespread attitude that stuff on the individual, personal level doesn't count as misogyny -- one guy being an asshole to one woman does not count as misogyny. It absolutely does count. We are talking about a pattern, and a pattern is made up of individual incidents.

Collapse )

(no subject)

foreverdirt linked to this excellent talk about sexism in science, the talk is an hour long and there are introductions before and questions after so it is a bit long, but I think worth it.

One of the excellent points made, and one that I have failed to express when I wanted to, so I'll do it here instead - is saying things like "women are innately worse at science" is *actively harmful* to the progress of women in science, and that if you are thinking of saying such a thing in public then you really ought to be very sure that you are right; that just saying such things with the force of your reputation and your conviction that you are right will cause other people (in this case women) to internalise the message (and as a result be worse at science). It turns out that this has actually *been tested*; if you give girls a maths test then they *do worse on it* if you remind them that girls aren't good at maths before they sit it.