No matter what he believes, he can be tolerant of what you believe in.
Let's be clear here, as you appear to have forgotten the significance of his actions: the man donated money to try to deny gays their equal rights. That's what a thousand dollars against gay marriage actually signifies. 'He can still be tolerant' doesn't even enter the equation - we know for a fact he is not!
Let's imagine a brief conversation:
Gay man: I hope to marry my long-term boyfriend just as soon as it's legal. We can hardly wait.
Eich: Yeah? I really hope the government continues to deny you two the right to marry.
Gay man: Oh, but you respect what we believe in, right?
Eich: Yeah, sure, I just advocate a law which doesn't.
...
No, Eich is not 'tolerant of what others believe'. Whether a gay couple wish to get married does not affect him in the slightest, yet he wants government policy to forbid them from doing so.
It is not a 'bigoted opinion' or 'bigoted cause' because no matter what he believes in he can be willing to tolerate your difference of opinion.
No. Not in any even vaguely meaningful sense. If neither personal belief nor personal action can qualify one as a bigot, what on Earth can? This is surely exactly analogous to saying a man who donates money to revoke the ability for black people to get married isn't necessarily a racist, no?
Being tolerant to the intolerant may be the harder path, but it is the path to a civil society.
Ah, the Paradox of Tolerance. (Which only applies if you concede that Eich is intolerant.) I agree on some level - where do we draw the line between an unusual opinion and one which ought to be punished? - but I'll shed no tears for Eich, and I would have no problem with, say, a neo-Nazi being passed-over for CEO.
Wootery can see it comes off that way, but 'planned obsolescence' really is the correct term.
I hoped Depending on how you look at it would clarify that I'm not set against payware closed-source software.
their free email goes down for an hour
GMail (and co) isn't free. You pay in privacy for directed-advertising, rather than money, and as Eben Moglen has persuasively argued, the price of privacy should not be treated as transactional, but rather as ecological: Google now knows not only intimate details about you, but also about everyone with whom you communicate via email.
This depends on just how far we run with just for the sake of it.
They both have perfect/near-perfect X11 backward compatibility. Not quite the same as demanding that all that business-critical COBOL be rewritten in Scala.
(Apparently Ubuntu had hopes to phase out the X11 compatibility, though.)
Proprietary software can be done right, with minimal effort to support it for decades.
(Emphasis mine)
Citation needed. Even if the software is near-perfect, you'll still need to have people on-staff who are familiar with the decades-old software. This alone surely makes it non-easy.
Not to mention it opposes Microsoft's business-model of planned obsolescence.
Depending on how you look at it, this can be either:
* They want to force people to buy their new offerings (Windows 8.1, or at least 7)
* They don't want to support their old products indefinitely
In addition, it would help the Wine and ReactOS projects enormously (indeed, it would render ReactOS rather pointless), and would harm Microsoft's 'lock-in'. A Free-and-Open-Source fork of Windows could do violence to Microsoft's prospects.
(I guess in doing so it might take away one reason to move to Linux, and so perhaps drive custom to Microsoft's ecosystems, but ultimately I doubt it would play out in MS's favour.)
It would be interesting to see how many new exploits could be uncovered by making the source public, though - a high-profile, real-world test of 'more eyeballs'/security-through-obscurity.
This immediatly spurred innovation and we now have much better 4G coverage, with some other providers opting for WiMax.
Were these technologies legally forbidden from being deployed? If so, the old regulations certainly were holding back the new technologies, but it doesn't mean that enforcing standards is always a bad idea. Rather, it means you should keep your laws up to date.
Thesetwo crappy articles say you're right. I'm not convinced they knew what they were doing.
"It was intense going through it," said the 18-year-old high school student who played the waterboarding victim. He asked not to be named.
Given that he'd supposedly just been subjected to drowning torture, that he described it as 'intense' seems rather... odd. The people Hitchens went to, actually knew what they were doing.
Would they volunteer, say, for a blowtorch on the balls?
Well put. Idiotic students trivialising the matter just makes it seem they're pushing for a broader understanding of 'torture', rather than convincing anyone that waterboarding is torture.
Assuming that by 'pour water on his face' we are referring to waterboarding, you have forgotten an important detail: CIA directors, like most people, really don't like being subjected to drowning torture.
We'd see an end to this waterboarding isn't torture bullshit awfully quickly.
Nonsense. He donated his own money to oppose equal rights for gays. He's not even attempted to deny this. How much more clear-cut can it be?
Saying he is a bigot is one thing, but if I start changing my behaviors because of his beliefs, that very much does make me a bigot too.
Nonsense. If the man was a neo-nazi, you'd be fine with that too?
Bigoted behaviour of public figures absolutely should be condemned, precisely because of the importance of tolerance. You aren't working toward a tolerant society if you let this kind of thing slide.
Being tolerant means just that - tolerance for things you do not like. That's where you missed the plot. From where I stand you come off looking a lot worse than he does.
You seem to be fine with people being homophobic, but if I call a homophobe a bigot, you think that's out of line? You do realise that homophobes are by definition intolerant, right? That they really are trying to deny equal rights to a minority?
How far do you want to take this tolerance-of-intolerance, then?
Suppose you're of a minority, of one or both of ethnicity and sexuality. (Given the out-of-touch nature of your position, I am quite confident that you are neither.) Suppose you find yourself in a conversation with a militant intolerant, who says to you Personally I think everyone like you should be strung up until they stop coughing. Would your response be Interesting, I'm totally ok with you believing that, isn't diversity great?? I sincerely hope not.
I didn't "miss the plot". Your position is clear, and it's misguided.
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'.
I was referring to:
I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes
You are calling the mainstream advice of the medical community 'extreme', no? This categorisation looks an awful lot like the argument to moderation fallacy.
I don't know where you're getting Anything that does not match your view is 'extreme' according to you from. I'm not calling anyone extreme. I'm questioning your use of the term.
Huh? I never 'just' invented a position
Looks like I rather mangled my point there: I was trying to say that no-one is arguing that everyone should be given every vaccine irrespective of their state-of-health/family-history/intolerances. No-one is saying to ignore the do-not-vaccinate-if conditions. That, of course, really would be an extreme pro-vaccination position.
since you lost the debate on increase risk (there is none)
I lost nothing. It is here that you move from arguing category to assuming vanishing degree:
I'll agree that someone has additional risk due to someone refusing the vaccine, considering that the risk is so small it's irrelevant to debate
You have no idea if it's actually so small it's irrelevant to debate, you just made that up. I have no idea either, but I'm not pretending.
If you have pneumonia it is not recommended that you get vaccines. Period.
I wasn't able to find anything on the web about getting vaccines whilst having pneumonia. If you have a good source on this - or on any failure of the medical community to communicate the 'do-not-vaccinate-if conditions' - I'd be interested.
The doctors point was that we need to treat vaccines like other medical procedures, not all refuse vaccines.
I'm just not convinced that they're not already doing this. I've already pointed-out an example case (with the severe egg intolerance).
Currently there is very little done to measure a persons health at the time they get a vaccine. Further, we are compounding potential issues by giving multiple vaccines at the same time.
Again, extraordinary claim, but no evidence. I'm not going to just take your word for it that the medical community is negligent.
Are people falsely convinced that vaccines do nothing to the human body, including some medical professionals?
Well naturally they're not expected to do nothing. The side-effects are studied and documented, and patients are told what they are. You are suggesting hidden damage is done?
Are we doing enough testing of the vaccines themselves to ensure they are safe (contaminated vaccines are uncommon but happen)?
As far as I can see, yes we are.
I feel bad for your children because that's reckless behavior
Extraordinary claim. Evidence please.
let me close with these two points
We're not done yet, surely. Thanks for your time anyway though, if you insist.
We have already agreed that there is no increased risk to you by allowing me making my own choices.
This really is curious. At which point exactly do you think I agreed to this? Please, quote away. I have repeatedly pointed out why the increased risk is non-zero, and you have even agreed, only to go on to assume that the non-zero value must surely be tiny (though you have offered nothing as to why this must be true).
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself
Bullshit. The man's a bigot. Calling him a bigot does not make me a bigot, it simply makes me correct.
The difference between he and I? He's trying to make the world a worse place for an innocent group of people. I'm just calling him out for being a bigot.
For gays to get Eich to stop, they have to deny their own sexuality. For Eich to get me to stop, he has to stop saying bigoted things, and stop supporting bigoted causes. There's quite a big difference.
This argument would hold if there weren't Americans working god-awful hours in their struggle just to get by and provide for their families. Or struggling to pay medical expenses/insurance. Or failing to pay medical expenses and, you know, dying preventable deaths.
What you are saying is no better than First world problems lol!.
Who's out of touch, you or me?
(For the record: I'm not American, and I'm not complaining about my own situation.)
Disagree. I've seen Git used to good effect in a traditional corporate environment. The ability to quickly make your own branches is useful, even if there's just an SVN-style single trunk of proper code-reviewed commits. (Technically, as Git is SVN compatible, so you could get this effect simply by using Git 'locally'.)
The ability to make team-specific branches is also valuable: a team can work toward a feature using a team-local branch, and only once they're done, rebase and push their work into the the trunk. (Yes, rebasing might take work, but it can be beneficial to just 'do this all in one go' when the team is done implementing the feature, as it means the ground isn't moving beneath their feet during 'proper' development time.)
Git does everything SVN does, and an awful lot more - personally I'd only even consider going with SVN if there were a developer team who only knew SVN and didn't have time to learn Git.
Don't know much about Mercurial, but I'm sure it's good too.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter what he believes, he can be tolerant of what you believe in.
Let's be clear here, as you appear to have forgotten the significance of his actions: the man donated money to try to deny gays their equal rights. That's what a thousand dollars against gay marriage actually signifies. 'He can still be tolerant' doesn't even enter the equation - we know for a fact he is not!
Let's imagine a brief conversation:
Gay man: I hope to marry my long-term boyfriend just as soon as it's legal. We can hardly wait.
Eich: Yeah? I really hope the government continues to deny you two the right to marry.
Gay man: Oh, but you respect what we believe in, right?
Eich: Yeah, sure, I just advocate a law which doesn't.
...
No, Eich is not 'tolerant of what others believe'. Whether a gay couple wish to get married does not affect him in the slightest, yet he wants government policy to forbid them from doing so.
It is not a 'bigoted opinion' or 'bigoted cause' because no matter what he believes in he can be willing to tolerate your difference of opinion.
No. Not in any even vaguely meaningful sense. If neither personal belief nor personal action can qualify one as a bigot, what on Earth can? This is surely exactly analogous to saying a man who donates money to revoke the ability for black people to get married isn't necessarily a racist, no?
Being tolerant to the intolerant may be the harder path, but it is the path to a civil society.
Ah, the Paradox of Tolerance. (Which only applies if you concede that Eich is intolerant.) I agree on some level - where do we draw the line between an unusual opinion and one which ought to be punished? - but I'll shed no tears for Eich, and I would have no problem with, say, a neo-Nazi being passed-over for CEO.
Wootery says with a hint of disdain.
Wootery can see it comes off that way, but 'planned obsolescence' really is the correct term.
I hoped Depending on how you look at it would clarify that I'm not set against payware closed-source software.
their free email goes down for an hour
GMail (and co) isn't free. You pay in privacy for directed-advertising, rather than money, and as Eben Moglen has persuasively argued, the price of privacy should not be treated as transactional, but rather as ecological: Google now knows not only intimate details about you, but also about everyone with whom you communicate via email.
They even trump holistic healers and political/religious leaders/zealots.
I don't think that's necessary the same crowd as the audiophiles and wine-tasters...
(Granted it's a similar form of bullshit: the kind which, in a happier alternate universe, is illegal by means of false-advertising law.)
This seems the right way to run things: require that innovation go through the 'proper route' of becoming an industry standard.
This depends on just how far we run with just for the sake of it.
They both have perfect/near-perfect X11 backward compatibility. Not quite the same as demanding that all that business-critical COBOL be rewritten in Scala.
(Apparently Ubuntu had hopes to phase out the X11 compatibility, though.)
Proprietary software can be done right, with minimal effort to support it for decades.
(Emphasis mine)
Citation needed. Even if the software is near-perfect, you'll still need to have people on-staff who are familiar with the decades-old software. This alone surely makes it non-easy.
Not to mention it opposes Microsoft's business-model of planned obsolescence.
Depending on how you look at it, this can be either:
In addition, it would help the Wine and ReactOS projects enormously (indeed, it would render ReactOS rather pointless), and would harm Microsoft's 'lock-in'. A Free-and-Open-Source fork of Windows could do violence to Microsoft's prospects.
(I guess in doing so it might take away one reason to move to Linux, and so perhaps drive custom to Microsoft's ecosystems, but ultimately I doubt it would play out in MS's favour.)
It would be interesting to see how many new exploits could be uncovered by making the source public, though - a high-profile, real-world test of 'more eyeballs'/security-through-obscurity.
The Internet agrees with this explanation.
There's little point throwing away decades of refined code just for the sake of it.
I agree, but who's saying otherwise?
This immediatly spurred innovation and we now have much better 4G coverage, with some other providers opting for WiMax.
Were these technologies legally forbidden from being deployed? If so, the old regulations certainly were holding back the new technologies, but it doesn't mean that enforcing standards is always a bad idea. Rather, it means you should keep your laws up to date.
Well, there is this one crazy project.
Then it wouldn't be encryption. It would be hashing.
There's always going to be some idiot out there making a bigger bullet.
Pretty sure cracking cryptographic algorithms isn't an idiot's game.
Ah yes, the flight manifest.
These two crappy articles say you're right. I'm not convinced they knew what they were doing.
"It was intense going through it," said the 18-year-old high school student who played the waterboarding victim. He asked not to be named.
Given that he'd supposedly just been subjected to drowning torture, that he described it as 'intense' seems rather... odd. The people Hitchens went to, actually knew what they were doing.
Would they volunteer, say, for a blowtorch on the balls?
Well put. Idiotic students trivialising the matter just makes it seem they're pushing for a broader understanding of 'torture', rather than convincing anyone that waterboarding is torture.
Let's see: Jesse Ventura, a Navy SEAL, was waterboarded, and says it's definitely torture. Apparently the SEALs used to use waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training, but stopped as the inability of anyone to tolerate it was damaging morale. The linked article says the mean-time-to-failure was 14 seconds.
Hitchens was waterboarded, and said it's definitely torture.
Rather uniquely, Oliver North claims to have been waterboarded and says it's not torture. Personally I'd like him to spend a few seconds at the hands of the guys Hitchens went to. I suspect he'd change his mind rather quickly.
Sean Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded, but backed-out. He maintains it's not torture, and points to North.
But if you are speaking on behalf of people that you don't know, how do you know how they live or how they view it?
This is no less absurd than Who are you to judge Stalin? Did you ever meet him?
Are you denying that there are millions of Americans who work hard for only just enough money to get by? Here's one.
It's worth noting that this is already possible today.
The only question is whether Allura will be game-changingly good at what it sets out to do.
(Also, I agree that this is a Good Thing overall. What we see today is a GitHub monoculture.)
Assuming that by 'pour water on his face' we are referring to waterboarding, you have forgotten an important detail: CIA directors, like most people, really don't like being subjected to drowning torture.
We'd see an end to this waterboarding isn't torture bullshit awfully quickly.
Relevant Wikipedia article, and another.
Perhaps, we don't know for sure.
Nonsense. He donated his own money to oppose equal rights for gays. He's not even attempted to deny this. How much more clear-cut can it be?
Saying he is a bigot is one thing, but if I start changing my behaviors because of his beliefs, that very much does make me a bigot too.
Nonsense. If the man was a neo-nazi, you'd be fine with that too?
Bigoted behaviour of public figures absolutely should be condemned, precisely because of the importance of tolerance. You aren't working toward a tolerant society if you let this kind of thing slide.
Being tolerant means just that - tolerance for things you do not like. That's where you missed the plot. From where I stand you come off looking a lot worse than he does.
You seem to be fine with people being homophobic, but if I call a homophobe a bigot, you think that's out of line? You do realise that homophobes are by definition intolerant, right? That they really are trying to deny equal rights to a minority?
How far do you want to take this tolerance-of-intolerance, then?
Suppose you're of a minority, of one or both of ethnicity and sexuality. (Given the out-of-touch nature of your position, I am quite confident that you are neither.) Suppose you find yourself in a conversation with a militant intolerant, who says to you Personally I think everyone like you should be strung up until they stop coughing. Would your response be Interesting, I'm totally ok with you believing that, isn't diversity great?? I sincerely hope not.
I didn't "miss the plot". Your position is clear, and it's misguided.
When I put:
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'.
I was referring to:
I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes
You are calling the mainstream advice of the medical community 'extreme', no? This categorisation looks an awful lot like the argument to moderation fallacy.
I don't know where you're getting Anything that does not match your view is 'extreme' according to you from. I'm not calling anyone extreme. I'm questioning your use of the term.
Huh? I never 'just' invented a position
Looks like I rather mangled my point there: I was trying to say that no-one is arguing that everyone should be given every vaccine irrespective of their state-of-health/family-history/intolerances. No-one is saying to ignore the do-not-vaccinate-if conditions. That, of course, really would be an extreme pro-vaccination position.
since you lost the debate on increase risk (there is none)
I lost nothing. It is here that you move from arguing category to assuming vanishing degree:
I'll agree that someone has additional risk due to someone refusing the vaccine, considering that the risk is so small it's irrelevant to debate
You have no idea if it's actually so small it's irrelevant to debate, you just made that up. I have no idea either, but I'm not pretending.
If you have pneumonia it is not recommended that you get vaccines. Period.
I wasn't able to find anything on the web about getting vaccines whilst having pneumonia. If you have a good source on this - or on any failure of the medical community to communicate the 'do-not-vaccinate-if conditions' - I'd be interested.
The doctors point was that we need to treat vaccines like other medical procedures, not all refuse vaccines.
I'm just not convinced that they're not already doing this. I've already pointed-out an example case (with the severe egg intolerance).
Currently there is very little done to measure a persons health at the time they get a vaccine. Further, we are compounding potential issues by giving multiple vaccines at the same time.
Again, extraordinary claim, but no evidence. I'm not going to just take your word for it that the medical community is negligent.
Are people falsely convinced that vaccines do nothing to the human body, including some medical professionals?
Well naturally they're not expected to do nothing. The side-effects are studied and documented, and patients are told what they are. You are suggesting hidden damage is done?
Are we doing enough testing of the vaccines themselves to ensure they are safe (contaminated vaccines are uncommon but happen)?
As far as I can see, yes we are.
I feel bad for your children because that's reckless behavior
Extraordinary claim. Evidence please.
let me close with these two points
We're not done yet, surely. Thanks for your time anyway though, if you insist.
We have already agreed that there is no increased risk to you by allowing me making my own choices.
This really is curious. At which point exactly do you think I agreed to this? Please, quote away. I have repeatedly pointed out why the increased risk is non-zero, and you have even agreed, only to go on to assume that the non-zero value must surely be tiny (though you have offered nothing as to why this must be true).
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself
Bullshit. The man's a bigot. Calling him a bigot does not make me a bigot, it simply makes me correct.
The difference between he and I? He's trying to make the world a worse place for an innocent group of people. I'm just calling him out for being a bigot.
For gays to get Eich to stop, they have to deny their own sexuality. For Eich to get me to stop, he has to stop saying bigoted things, and stop supporting bigoted causes. There's quite a big difference.
(As others have pointed out.)
If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands
But it does not do to tolerate intolerance. Not if you believe in a tolerant society.
Spoiled people should not complain...
This argument would hold if there weren't Americans working god-awful hours in their struggle just to get by and provide for their families. Or struggling to pay medical expenses/insurance. Or failing to pay medical expenses and, you know, dying preventable deaths.
What you are saying is no better than First world problems lol!.
Who's out of touch, you or me?
(For the record: I'm not American, and I'm not complaining about my own situation.)
Disagree. I've seen Git used to good effect in a traditional corporate environment. The ability to quickly make your own branches is useful, even if there's just an SVN-style single trunk of proper code-reviewed commits. (Technically, as Git is SVN compatible, so you could get this effect simply by using Git 'locally'.)
The ability to make team-specific branches is also valuable: a team can work toward a feature using a team-local branch, and only once they're done, rebase and push their work into the the trunk. (Yes, rebasing might take work, but it can be beneficial to just 'do this all in one go' when the team is done implementing the feature, as it means the ground isn't moving beneath their feet during 'proper' development time.)
Git does everything SVN does, and an awful lot more - personally I'd only even consider going with SVN if there were a developer team who only knew SVN and didn't have time to learn Git.
Don't know much about Mercurial, but I'm sure it's good too.