DOM storage? Great, *yet* another way in which websites can store data. I haven't even managed to educate people like my parents about why they shouldn't automatically accept cookies from every server forever - and don't get me started on Flash and its ability to store data on your computer without you even noticing (a "feature" that's enabled by default, one might add, and that can't even (easily) be disabled without going to Adobe's website).
Now, don't get me wrong, there certainly are legitimate reasons to store data on people's computers, but I really want to have some control over who can store information on mine - I want to be able to allow/disallow it, I want to be able to say "notify me whenever it happens", and, most importantly, I want a sensible default where at the *very* least, you get notifications that data is being stored.
If you had read the blog entry (and the update) the GP linked to, you would've noticed that noone ever said that the Dyson hoovers were bad - quite the opposite. They apparently all received "very good" ratings; what the GP was trying to point out is that
a) The Dysons are not an order of magnitude better, as it often seems to be claimed; b) In fact, in all tests, there were a number of other hoovers that were *better*; c) In fact, those other hoovers were also *cheaper*.
So, no, a Dyson certainly isn't bad, but you can get an even better product for a lower price if you buy from another manufacturer, as long as you care about performance than about novel looks.
As others have already said, there is no worldwide embargo; if I wanted to, for example, I (in Europe) could go and buy Cuban cigars in any cigar store without problems. (And I mean cigars that are actually from Cuba, not just ones where the manufacturer decided to call them "Cuban" in order to boost sales.)
Not that it makes much of a difference: Cuba is still getting hurt by the US-American embargo a lot, of course.
We're talking about adults, though (for the most part), and while justice is important, I also think it's fair to expect adults to show some common sense when it comes to settlements. If you're entering a settlement, well, then keep in mind that it's a SETTLEMENT; the whole idea is that the issue is, well, settled that way. If you don't want to settle, don't enter a settlement.
Of course, the legal system has certainly reached a point where it's impossible for a layperson to really make sense of everything without the help of a lawyer, and lawyers giving bad advice are a problem. But the choice is ultimately still with the client.
(On a side note, I never understood why people who're actually innocent settle, anyway. Yes, I know, a legal victory can be expensive, but if you're not guilty, then shouldn't you be able to recover your expenses when it becomes obvious that there was no actual evidence?)
That'll work fine until the CEO demands to know why he can't check his mail anymore or why there suddenly is "a little bit of latency" that wasn't there before. Don't overestimate your power to "set network policy" in the face of upper management.
No, I don't think that's loaded language - I just think it's a difference in interpretation of the word "free".
As far as I can tell, what you mean when you talk about "free software" is that the freedom that's being talked about applies to the user (/distributor/developer/...); so for you, software is not free when the user does not have the right to use it (and I mean use in a general sense, not just as in "run it") in any way he sees fit.
When RMS talks about "free software", on the other hand, he literally means that the software *itself* is free (as in libre, not gratis) - and that necessarily means that there have to be some restrictions on what people can do with it, since freedom (of the software) doesn't mean anything if it can just be taken away.
I'm not saying either interpretation is a priori more valid, but you shouldn't accuse him of using loaded language, since just like his isn't any more valid than yours, yours isn't any more valid than his, either. They both make sense (linguistically speaking, at least).
That's only true if you equate "DRM" with "any license that is not, in essence, equivalent to putting the code in question into the public domain" - and that's clearly rubbish, not to mention that you should avoid using loaded terms like "DRM" when it's not actually necessary. Doing so is a minor Godwin-like offense.
Outside of that, of course the GPL restricts freedom - DUH. The basic principle behind the GPL is, essentially, "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts", and I'm not sure what's wrong with that, either. Everybody's free to download GPL'ed software, to use it, to study it, modify it and adapt it; you don't even have to make your modifications public or anything if you do so. You really can do a lot of things; the only thing you can't do is distribute the software without abiding by the terms of the license.
So, yes, it is an impingement on freedom, but the implicit assertion that this is a bad thing makes about as much sense as asserting that outlawing murder is bad because it impinges on your freedom to murder people. Of course it does - that's the POINT. And the GPL takes great care to not impinge on any other freedoms of yours with regard to the software in question.
While that *is* a third-party source, it's worth noting that PJ is a huge fan of the GPLv3. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, mind you - just that whatever *she* writes should be taken with a grain of salt and read with a skeptical mind as well, since she already made up her mind a long time ago. In that regard, she doesn't differ from RMS etc..
(Of course, reading with a skeptical mind is *always* a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd turn to Groklaw for objective, neutral reporting and *factual* information regarding the GPLv3.)
That's a perfect example of a non sequitur - you could just as well argue that corporate taxes are "just dumb" (what does that mean, anyway? Unfair? Unnecessary? Counterproductive?) because the sky is blue.
Also, are there *any* taxes at all which are not, ultimately, paid by the people?
Y'know, if US-Americans are so quick to dismiss anything that might not portray them in the BEST possible light as underhanded attacks against them (everyone knows Europe is a cesspool of anti-Americanism, right?), then I'm not surprised you really are falling behind.
Seriously, you can't improve if you don't acknowledge that there's a problem, so wake up and smell the roses! Contrary to what people like you might think, you're not automatically the first, best and greatest in everything simply by virtue of being the USA. So if you want to change that, stop that ridiculous paranoia and start working on improving things.
But then, maybe I shouldn't tell you about this. I'm one of those America-hatin' pinko commie hippie fascists from Europe as well, after all, so naturally, I plot and scheme for the downfall of the USA. Maybe I should just let you keep your delusions in order to accelerate your demise.
Regarding use of the term "friend", there's an interesting paper here that deals with the use of the term "friend" and its different meanings on Livejournal. Quite an interesting read, and much of it (the general principles, at the very least) probably applies elsewhere, too.
Nobody says you've got to be perfect or that you always have to succeed, but you should at least try and make an effort. For example, when you operate a cash register, you don't tell customers "take whatever you need, I'll trust that you're not going to cheat me and take more than I owe you"; rather, you acknowledge that not everyone's honest and try to take reasonable precautions so bad things won't happen. It might not work (you still might get cheated, robbed or whatever), but that's not an excuse for not trying.
In its simplest form, couldn't a person's academic credentials be verified by sending a confirmation link to their.edu e-mail?
No. Here's a hint for you: there's a world outside the USA (in fact, 95% of the world's population live there), and universities there don't have.edu domains. You may find similar things in some countries (like.ac.uk in the UK), but since not every country uses generic 2nd level domains under the ccTLDs, that doesn't work most of the time, either.
But you're confusing things, anyhow: academic titles don't matter on Wikipedia. That's not to say that expert contributors are discouraged - quite the opposite! But you cannot appeal to authority; all information that goes into articles needs to cite reliable sources, so even if you're Stephen Hawking, you can't just say "trust me, I know more about this than you ever will" (even when that's actually true). And that is a feature, not a bug - think about it.
As for the rest of the article... sorry, I lost interest after this bombshell of naivity.
You don't have to prove otherwise: if the judge slaps your wrist despite the fact that it's testimony vs. testimony, he's violated the presumption of innocence, which (while not explicitely being in the US constitution) is inferred from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. So in that case, the natural course of action would be to appeal - all the way up to the SCOTUS, if necessary.
Of course, it'd take years and a vast amount of money to do so, and I'm not sure whether it'd actually be worth it to you, but you've got a choice, at least: you can swallow the injustice because the consequences are less bad than they'd be if you stood up to it, or you can stand up to it and swallow the increased costs.
I'm not saying that either is automatically always the better option, but it's not like there's nothing you can do, at least.
Also, nobody has ever been jailed for selling a fucking sandwich to the wrong guy. That's just FUD.
It's not FUD, for the simple reason that the law *does* indeed make it illegal to sell a sandwich to the wrong guy. It doesn't matter that nobody's been prosecuted for it so far (how do you KNOW it's never happened, anyway?); if something's illegal, it's illegal, and pointing out that something IS, in fact, illegal (assuming that that statement is true) is not FUD.
I wouldn't trust the government if there was a law and if it was promised that it would not actually be enforced. Here, we have a law and NO promise that it won't be enforced - just something that superficially resembles circumstantial evidence but that really isn't any because you didn't (and can't) verify it and that you just pulled out of your arse, using the logic that because you didn't hear about it, it must never have happened. Why should I trust THAT?
Urgh. Did you, as a Slashdot poster (and thus, by implication, a geek - someone who should at least possess a reasonable amount of intelligence), just subtract 77% from 94% to arrive at the conclusion that Casino Royale is "17% better"? Check your math: if *anything* (that is, if the numbers no RottenTomatoes really directly translate to *quality*, as opposed to just reflecting critical reception), then it's about 22%.
If phrenology is the forecasting of someone's personality by looking at the bumps on the person's head, how about phrenotherapy: behavior modification by adding bumps to someone's head.
That's called "retrophrenology", and Terry Pratchett already beat you to it.;)
Languages are rarely uniform, and English is no exception. For example, do Britons say "go to the supermarket" or just "go to supermarket"? The GP's questions is pretty nonsensical (if superficially interesting), but your answer doesn't really shed much light on things, either, other than saying "not everyone's the same, deal". Which is true, of course, but not very helpful.:)
Just out of curiosity, what should he have done? If you really took these serious, you should've taken it to the FBI, and if they had taken them serious, too, I suppose they could've asked Slashdot for the poster's (posters'?) IP addresses, and the email address used to sign up for the account used to make the last comment, and gone from there, but... since you only emailed Taco privately, what did you expect him to do?
I'm not generally a fan of Taco, but I think he was quite right here, myself: ignoring these is the best option. They were obviously made by a pimple-faced 13 year-old nerd in his parent's basement who needed a convenient outlet after getting stuffed into the rubbish bin by the schoolyard bullies again.
If threats like that are serious (that is, if you THINK they are serious), do report them to the FBI and let them handle it. If they're not... then ignoring the whole thing instead of giving the idiot who posted them power over you and your life is the best thing you do to. Don't let yourself get terrorised.
It's a no-win situation for women and victim-blaming is an easy way to avoid having any empathy for the victim, or feel the need to press for change.
You're creating a false dichotomy here when you say that any poster who's not entirely on her side like a yesman is automatically engaging in "victim-blaming". What's happening to her is horrible, and I know from experience that this kind of crap can REALLY make you sick, but ultimately, she's an adult - she's responsible for herself. And if she acts in a counterproductive, childish, irrational manner, a manner that won't actually solve her problems but instead only make them worse, then I don't think it's unfair to point that out. Certainly the way she's acting is *understandable*, but she should have the brainpower to reflect on her actions and evaluate them - and she should be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance caused by others telling her that the way she's reacting is not going to help in any way and that it is, in fact, just going to harm her even further instead.
I think that to an extent, you missed the GP's points. Of course these comments are horrible and misogynistic (and in that regard, the GP's wrong), but I don't see how you extrapolate to the entire tech industry based on a handful of comments from one person.
In fact, given how abhorrent these comments are, I think the opposite is true: unless you really believe that all (or, at the VERY least, most) members of the tech industry identify with comments like that, the generalisation is not only simply wrong but also quite villainous.
I, for one, am not going to allow myself to get thrown into one pot with idiots like the one that made those comments.
More importantly, if you call a person who is intersex a hermaphrodite many will likely be quite unhappy with you. Its akin to calling a Native American an 'Indian' - not only generally disliked by the people you are labeling but also factually incorrect because of a misunderstanding of what the term means (or on what continent you are located.)
That's not necessarily true insofar as that some intersexual people (whether they're true hermaphrodites or not) actually use the term "hermaphrodite" as a label that's worn with pride (for example, the ISNA (Intersex Society of North America) had a newsletter called "Hermaphrodites with Attitude" until a few years ago), but you're correct that it's not generally something that you should do unless you're intersexual yourself. It's just like when an African American calls another "my nigga"; that's perfectly fine and not understood as an insult, but you shouldn't try it if you're white.
Imagine living a life where you are called "a very special and wonderful person", but no personal life or even ability to enter either public restroom without people looking at you dubiously.
Do you really think that this is the biggest problem intersexual people will ever face in their life? If yes, you seriously need to read up on these things a bit.
First of all, as a disclaimer, I'm not intersexual myself, but I'm interested in inter- and transsexuality and know a couple of people who are. Most of the intersexuals I know had a gender surgically assigned to them after birth, too (female, FWIW; as doctors say, "it's easier to dig a hole than build a pole"). But you know what? Neither of them is happy.
In fact, the *exact opposite* is true. *Every single* intersexual I've talked to or heard about has said the same thing so far - that doing so is, essentially, butchering, a traumatic experience that will haunt you for your entire life. Even in these times where sexual reassignmet surgery is not impossible anymore, the results are far inferior to anything that nature came up with (if you can even afford the whole procedure!), and the psychological problems associated with having your body mutilated after birth are just as serious.
What really needs to be done when an intersexual child is born is really easy: bloody leave them alone. The child will eventually grow up and be able to make their own decisions; if they decide then that they really belong to one gender, it's not too late to do surgery etc.. What's more, it might well be that the child decides that they're really male - contrary to popular opinion, "intersexual" and "transsexual" do not mean "a guy who wants to become a chick".
But there's also a decent chance that the child will say "I'm happy the way I am", and who's to say that that's not within their rights? If the only reason you can come up with is that there might be confusion over which restroom is appropriate, well... I'm sorry, but that isn't quite enough.
What's more, when you're talking about things like restroom usage, you make a very fundamental mistake: you look at what other people and society in general will see the child as, rather than what the child themselves thinks. But it's the child who will have to live with their body; the idea that society has a right to say "you don't fit into our binary system, so we'll cut up your body and then pretend that you do (even though you really still don't)" is outrageous.
FWIW, BTW, another fundamental mistake that's often being made is the assumption that it's even possible to reassign gender - that is, the actual gender that someone identifies as, as opposed to their physical sex. One of the reasons why intersexual people were mutilated in the past and raised as girls is that doctors (wrongly) believed that if you just cut off everything that was non-girly and if you just put the child into a dress and told them they were female, they'd really believe it and grow up as a normal, well-adjusted *woman* - but in reality, it doesn't work, and never has.
Of course, I do understand that there are no ulterior motives - doctors, parents etc. really are trying to help intersexual children. But it's also important to realise that it's not working and that the only thing you're doing is CAUSING harm, not preventing it.
So, although this has little do to anymore with the original TFA, just let me say this: leave intersexual children alone, and let them make their own decisions when they're old enough. Until then, be tolerant, be honest, explain to them why they're different, and explain that it doesn't make them worth less or anything like that. That's the ONLY way you can actually help them.
There's nothing wrong with paid blogging, just like there isn't anything wrong with traditional advertising. The only thing that's not acceptable is misleading people about your motives, your impartiality (or lack thereof), and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
DOM storage? Great, *yet* another way in which websites can store data. I haven't even managed to educate people like my parents about why they shouldn't automatically accept cookies from every server forever - and don't get me started on Flash and its ability to store data on your computer without you even noticing (a "feature" that's enabled by default, one might add, and that can't even (easily) be disabled without going to Adobe's website).
Now, don't get me wrong, there certainly are legitimate reasons to store data on people's computers, but I really want to have some control over who can store information on mine - I want to be able to allow/disallow it, I want to be able to say "notify me whenever it happens", and, most importantly, I want a sensible default where at the *very* least, you get notifications that data is being stored.
If you had read the blog entry (and the update) the GP linked to, you would've noticed that noone ever said that the Dyson hoovers were bad - quite the opposite. They apparently all received "very good" ratings; what the GP was trying to point out is that
a) The Dysons are not an order of magnitude better, as it often seems to be claimed;
b) In fact, in all tests, there were a number of other hoovers that were *better*;
c) In fact, those other hoovers were also *cheaper*.
So, no, a Dyson certainly isn't bad, but you can get an even better product for a lower price if you buy from another manufacturer, as long as you care about performance than about novel looks.
As others have already said, there is no worldwide embargo; if I wanted to, for example, I (in Europe) could go and buy Cuban cigars in any cigar store without problems. (And I mean cigars that are actually from Cuba, not just ones where the manufacturer decided to call them "Cuban" in order to boost sales.)
Not that it makes much of a difference: Cuba is still getting hurt by the US-American embargo a lot, of course.
We're talking about adults, though (for the most part), and while justice is important, I also think it's fair to expect adults to show some common sense when it comes to settlements. If you're entering a settlement, well, then keep in mind that it's a SETTLEMENT; the whole idea is that the issue is, well, settled that way. If you don't want to settle, don't enter a settlement.
Of course, the legal system has certainly reached a point where it's impossible for a layperson to really make sense of everything without the help of a lawyer, and lawyers giving bad advice are a problem. But the choice is ultimately still with the client.
(On a side note, I never understood why people who're actually innocent settle, anyway. Yes, I know, a legal victory can be expensive, but if you're not guilty, then shouldn't you be able to recover your expenses when it becomes obvious that there was no actual evidence?)
That'll work fine until the CEO demands to know why he can't check his mail anymore or why there suddenly is "a little bit of latency" that wasn't there before. Don't overestimate your power to "set network policy" in the face of upper management.
No, I don't think that's loaded language - I just think it's a difference in interpretation of the word "free".
As far as I can tell, what you mean when you talk about "free software" is that the freedom that's being talked about applies to the user (/distributor/developer/...); so for you, software is not free when the user does not have the right to use it (and I mean use in a general sense, not just as in "run it") in any way he sees fit.
When RMS talks about "free software", on the other hand, he literally means that the software *itself* is free (as in libre, not gratis) - and that necessarily means that there have to be some restrictions on what people can do with it, since freedom (of the software) doesn't mean anything if it can just be taken away.
I'm not saying either interpretation is a priori more valid, but you shouldn't accuse him of using loaded language, since just like his isn't any more valid than yours, yours isn't any more valid than his, either. They both make sense (linguistically speaking, at least).
That's only true if you equate "DRM" with "any license that is not, in essence, equivalent to putting the code in question into the public domain" - and that's clearly rubbish, not to mention that you should avoid using loaded terms like "DRM" when it's not actually necessary. Doing so is a minor Godwin-like offense.
Outside of that, of course the GPL restricts freedom - DUH. The basic principle behind the GPL is, essentially, "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts", and I'm not sure what's wrong with that, either. Everybody's free to download GPL'ed software, to use it, to study it, modify it and adapt it; you don't even have to make your modifications public or anything if you do so. You really can do a lot of things; the only thing you can't do is distribute the software without abiding by the terms of the license.
So, yes, it is an impingement on freedom, but the implicit assertion that this is a bad thing makes about as much sense as asserting that outlawing murder is bad because it impinges on your freedom to murder people. Of course it does - that's the POINT. And the GPL takes great care to not impinge on any other freedoms of yours with regard to the software in question.
While that *is* a third-party source, it's worth noting that PJ is a huge fan of the GPLv3. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, mind you - just that whatever *she* writes should be taken with a grain of salt and read with a skeptical mind as well, since she already made up her mind a long time ago. In that regard, she doesn't differ from RMS etc..
(Of course, reading with a skeptical mind is *always* a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd turn to Groklaw for objective, neutral reporting and *factual* information regarding the GPLv3.)
That's a perfect example of a non sequitur - you could just as well argue that corporate taxes are "just dumb" (what does that mean, anyway? Unfair? Unnecessary? Counterproductive?) because the sky is blue.
Also, are there *any* taxes at all which are not, ultimately, paid by the people?
Y'know, if US-Americans are so quick to dismiss anything that might not portray them in the BEST possible light as underhanded attacks against them (everyone knows Europe is a cesspool of anti-Americanism, right?), then I'm not surprised you really are falling behind.
Seriously, you can't improve if you don't acknowledge that there's a problem, so wake up and smell the roses! Contrary to what people like you might think, you're not automatically the first, best and greatest in everything simply by virtue of being the USA. So if you want to change that, stop that ridiculous paranoia and start working on improving things.
But then, maybe I shouldn't tell you about this. I'm one of those America-hatin' pinko commie hippie fascists from Europe as well, after all, so naturally, I plot and scheme for the downfall of the USA. Maybe I should just let you keep your delusions in order to accelerate your demise.
Regarding use of the term "friend", there's an interesting paper here that deals with the use of the term "friend" and its different meanings on Livejournal. Quite an interesting read, and much of it (the general principles, at the very least) probably applies elsewhere, too.
Nobody says you've got to be perfect or that you always have to succeed, but you should at least try and make an effort. For example, when you operate a cash register, you don't tell customers "take whatever you need, I'll trust that you're not going to cheat me and take more than I owe you"; rather, you acknowledge that not everyone's honest and try to take reasonable precautions so bad things won't happen. It might not work (you still might get cheated, robbed or whatever), but that's not an excuse for not trying.
No. Here's a hint for you: there's a world outside the USA (in fact, 95% of the world's population live there), and universities there don't have .edu domains. You may find similar things in some countries (like .ac.uk in the UK), but since not every country uses generic 2nd level domains under the ccTLDs, that doesn't work most of the time, either.
But you're confusing things, anyhow: academic titles don't matter on Wikipedia. That's not to say that expert contributors are discouraged - quite the opposite! But you cannot appeal to authority; all information that goes into articles needs to cite reliable sources, so even if you're Stephen Hawking, you can't just say "trust me, I know more about this than you ever will" (even when that's actually true). And that is a feature, not a bug - think about it.
As for the rest of the article... sorry, I lost interest after this bombshell of naivity.
You don't have to prove otherwise: if the judge slaps your wrist despite the fact that it's testimony vs. testimony, he's violated the presumption of innocence, which (while not explicitely being in the US constitution) is inferred from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. So in that case, the natural course of action would be to appeal - all the way up to the SCOTUS, if necessary.
Of course, it'd take years and a vast amount of money to do so, and I'm not sure whether it'd actually be worth it to you, but you've got a choice, at least: you can swallow the injustice because the consequences are less bad than they'd be if you stood up to it, or you can stand up to it and swallow the increased costs.
I'm not saying that either is automatically always the better option, but it's not like there's nothing you can do, at least.
I wouldn't trust the government if there was a law and if it was promised that it would not actually be enforced. Here, we have a law and NO promise that it won't be enforced - just something that superficially resembles circumstantial evidence but that really isn't any because you didn't (and can't) verify it and that you just pulled out of your arse, using the logic that because you didn't hear about it, it must never have happened. Why should I trust THAT?
Urgh. Did you, as a Slashdot poster (and thus, by implication, a geek - someone who should at least possess a reasonable amount of intelligence), just subtract 77% from 94% to arrive at the conclusion that Casino Royale is "17% better"? Check your math: if *anything* (that is, if the numbers no RottenTomatoes really directly translate to *quality*, as opposed to just reflecting critical reception), then it's about 22%.
That's called "retrophrenology", and Terry Pratchett already beat you to it. ;)
Languages are rarely uniform, and English is no exception. For example, do Britons say "go to the supermarket" or just "go to supermarket"? The GP's questions is pretty nonsensical (if superficially interesting), but your answer doesn't really shed much light on things, either, other than saying "not everyone's the same, deal". Which is true, of course, but not very helpful. :)
Just out of curiosity, what should he have done? If you really took these serious, you should've taken it to the FBI, and if they had taken them serious, too, I suppose they could've asked Slashdot for the poster's (posters'?) IP addresses, and the email address used to sign up for the account used to make the last comment, and gone from there, but... since you only emailed Taco privately, what did you expect him to do?
I'm not generally a fan of Taco, but I think he was quite right here, myself: ignoring these is the best option. They were obviously made by a pimple-faced 13 year-old nerd in his parent's basement who needed a convenient outlet after getting stuffed into the rubbish bin by the schoolyard bullies again.
If threats like that are serious (that is, if you THINK they are serious), do report them to the FBI and let them handle it. If they're not... then ignoring the whole thing instead of giving the idiot who posted them power over you and your life is the best thing you do to. Don't let yourself get terrorised.
You're creating a false dichotomy here when you say that any poster who's not entirely on her side like a yesman is automatically engaging in "victim-blaming". What's happening to her is horrible, and I know from experience that this kind of crap can REALLY make you sick, but ultimately, she's an adult - she's responsible for herself. And if she acts in a counterproductive, childish, irrational manner, a manner that won't actually solve her problems but instead only make them worse, then I don't think it's unfair to point that out. Certainly the way she's acting is *understandable*, but she should have the brainpower to reflect on her actions and evaluate them - and she should be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance caused by others telling her that the way she's reacting is not going to help in any way and that it is, in fact, just going to harm her even further instead.
I think that to an extent, you missed the GP's points. Of course these comments are horrible and misogynistic (and in that regard, the GP's wrong), but I don't see how you extrapolate to the entire tech industry based on a handful of comments from one person.
In fact, given how abhorrent these comments are, I think the opposite is true: unless you really believe that all (or, at the VERY least, most) members of the tech industry identify with comments like that, the generalisation is not only simply wrong but also quite villainous.
I, for one, am not going to allow myself to get thrown into one pot with idiots like the one that made those comments.
That's not necessarily true insofar as that some intersexual people (whether they're true hermaphrodites or not) actually use the term "hermaphrodite" as a label that's worn with pride (for example, the ISNA (Intersex Society of North America) had a newsletter called "Hermaphrodites with Attitude" until a few years ago), but you're correct that it's not generally something that you should do unless you're intersexual yourself. It's just like when an African American calls another "my nigga"; that's perfectly fine and not understood as an insult, but you shouldn't try it if you're white.
Do you really think that this is the biggest problem intersexual people will ever face in their life? If yes, you seriously need to read up on these things a bit.
First of all, as a disclaimer, I'm not intersexual myself, but I'm interested in inter- and transsexuality and know a couple of people who are. Most of the intersexuals I know had a gender surgically assigned to them after birth, too (female, FWIW; as doctors say, "it's easier to dig a hole than build a pole"). But you know what? Neither of them is happy.
In fact, the *exact opposite* is true. *Every single* intersexual I've talked to or heard about has said the same thing so far - that doing so is, essentially, butchering, a traumatic experience that will haunt you for your entire life. Even in these times where sexual reassignmet surgery is not impossible anymore, the results are far inferior to anything that nature came up with (if you can even afford the whole procedure!), and the psychological problems associated with having your body mutilated after birth are just as serious.
What really needs to be done when an intersexual child is born is really easy: bloody leave them alone. The child will eventually grow up and be able to make their own decisions; if they decide then that they really belong to one gender, it's not too late to do surgery etc.. What's more, it might well be that the child decides that they're really male - contrary to popular opinion, "intersexual" and "transsexual" do not mean "a guy who wants to become a chick".
But there's also a decent chance that the child will say "I'm happy the way I am", and who's to say that that's not within their rights? If the only reason you can come up with is that there might be confusion over which restroom is appropriate, well... I'm sorry, but that isn't quite enough.
What's more, when you're talking about things like restroom usage, you make a very fundamental mistake: you look at what other people and society in general will see the child as, rather than what the child themselves thinks. But it's the child who will have to live with their body; the idea that society has a right to say "you don't fit into our binary system, so we'll cut up your body and then pretend that you do (even though you really still don't)" is outrageous.
FWIW, BTW, another fundamental mistake that's often being made is the assumption that it's even possible to reassign gender - that is, the actual gender that someone identifies as, as opposed to their physical sex. One of the reasons why intersexual people were mutilated in the past and raised as girls is that doctors (wrongly) believed that if you just cut off everything that was non-girly and if you just put the child into a dress and told them they were female, they'd really believe it and grow up as a normal, well-adjusted *woman* - but in reality, it doesn't work, and never has.
Of course, I do understand that there are no ulterior motives - doctors, parents etc. really are trying to help intersexual children. But it's also important to realise that it's not working and that the only thing you're doing is CAUSING harm, not preventing it.
So, although this has little do to anymore with the original TFA, just let me say this: leave intersexual children alone, and let them make their own decisions when they're old enough. Until then, be tolerant, be honest, explain to them why they're different, and explain that it doesn't make them worth less or anything like that. That's the ONLY way you can actually help them.
There's nothing wrong with paid blogging, just like there isn't anything wrong with traditional advertising. The only thing that's not acceptable is misleading people about your motives, your impartiality (or lack thereof), and so on.
Isn't "objective opinion" a contradiction in terms?