Letters to the Editor
brightstar65
Published Letters: 3526 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Salon
[Read the article: The truth about cat and dog food]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, fire your IT staff or something or send them off to some web development training.
Any page on the site takes 10 to 15 seconds to come up fully as the web code links to and pulls from myriad other places, super heavy CPU hogging ads are loaded up, and the page is drawn without the usual placemarkers to keep things from jumping around.
My attempts to scroll down the page or even to type in text on the letters page are met with further delays and stuttering.
I have a one year old state of the art $2500 Dell Laptop with 2 gb ram and a 256 mb gaming video card, so it is most definitely not my machine.
When I build web pages, I utilize the concept of KISS, keep it simple jackass. It makes things come up nice and quick and keeps people happy and staying on the site (adds to ad revenue immensely).
It has gotten to the point where I do not want to surf pages on the site because I dread having to wait while my computer stutters and freezes as ads bully up to the limits of the CPU.
I realize out there in San Francisco it is not considered fashionable for your web site not to have one of every example of CPU heavy technology just because you can, but please review what your servers are being forced to do to pull up just one simple page, even if you have to duplicate and cache all the page elements (other than the ads, which are served by doubleclick) onto each server and call them up that way, maybe even prebuilding and serving most of each page as one temporary document that is rebuilt once every thirty seconds or something. Surely with the universe of web technology out there, there are several good solutions (even open source- FREE!) to this problem.
-
SAD
[Read the article: Suing paycheck to paycheck]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and a slap in the face for every woman and minority who wants to live a fair life in the states.
but then, this country is headed down the wrong path anyway, as record numbers of people being polled attest.
-
This is a juicy article
[Read the article: It's hard to be a dude these days]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]full of the stuff I am interested in- changing gender roles, hot young women, passive men, bad boys winning.
yet, i am damn near speechless.
While I generally agree with the arc of the summary, there are some problems with it.
There is some conflation of several concepts that probably do need to be separated out.
For one thing, hot young guys will always be chased by young women for sex.
As women get older, they realize the price they can get for their tackle, which is where dating comes in.
But every date lately, for me at least (if I am PERMITTED to go from personal experience), seemed to me to be an opportunity for her to be contemptuous to me because i got 'suckered' into the old ritual of paying for her. So it is a no win for me when it comes to a lot of women, who want the romance of courting, but are contemptuous of the guys courting them. Maybe it doesn't happen to everyone, maybe it's the wrong women I was courting.
But it does go back to the argument some posters were making that men get condemned for having an opinion, and they get condemned for not having an opinion.
You can certainly have non-wimpy assertive guys who wear skirts and makeup. Or you can have wimpy passive men who play video games and who bend to women's whims and tell them what they want to hear to get them into bed (typically called 'liberal' men).
One of my past and consistent criticisms has been the way in which women choose the guys they sleep with. This still holds in this day and age- with women choosing those guys who get them hot, in essence thinking with their genitals (the exact thing they accuse guys of doing). This selecting is to the exclusion of most other characteristics by which they choose guys. This is not necessarily a problem until the girl gets pregnant or falls for the guy and the guy is already two counties away doing the next girl in his black book.
And again, the more respectful polite but not so hot guys are sidelined. These guys of course get resentful, then they are considered to be avoided by women because their (by now rightful) resentment towards women and the women's bad choices begins to affect their own ability to find attractive girls.
It is almost like a good respectful guy is considered (by women) lucky to get any girl because he was not good enough to get a hot girl. It is all broken and explains why books like "The Game" are more popular than ever. The guys know the pickup artists are the only ones winning these days. As I once described about some of my renters, in the same period when three of us guys in the house had one girl between us, the players in the house did 14 girls between them, a ratio of 21 to 1. So of course the bad experiences women have with the players is what 'defines' women's experiences with ALL men and why they conplain guys never call (CLUE: the players are already doing the next girl).
So it is back to the WAY OF THE BASTARD. The only difference with these passive young guys described in the article is that they still hold out romantic hope (as I did in my 20s) that the right girl will show up. By their thirties they will come to realize this does not happen, and that the guy must put on an 'act' to get any decent girl.
All sad, really. The girls are in charge and the girls delliberately make the wrong choices, falling for the users and players, then complain and blame men for their choices.