If we were not allowed to discriminate against people based on their choices it would get ridiculous. "Sorry, you can't send me to jail for stealing, that's discrimination."
Firstly, I never mentioned 'allowed'. I was discussing right and wrong.
Secondly, your comparison is preposterous. Not all matters of choice are equivalent. You can't see the difference between being gay and stealing someone's stuff? Good lord, do I really have to spell it out!?
Here goes: not all choices are fair game for discrimination. Choosing to steal my stuff harms me. Choosing to marry someone else of the same sex does not. Clear about the difference now?
Religious discrimination is unfair, despite religion being a choice, correct? (At least, much more a matter of choice than sexuality. One can choose to stop going to a place of worship, even if one can't choose to simply not believe something any more. The analogy to sexuality and sex is certainly there, but it remains that people can and do adopt/convert between/abandon religions.)
it also wouldn't make homosexuality a choice. The only choice introduced would be whether or not to get rid of one's homosexuality, which is not the same thing at all.
I don't see that the difference is significant. We can compare with a disease for which there is an effective, safe, and let's say completely free, cure: refusing treatment and continuing to suffer from the disease certainly can be called a choice, even though getting the disease in the first place was not.
You're just falling for the whole bullshit package of It's only unfair to discriminate on these grounds if these grounds are involuntary.
Being homosexual is not a life choice any more than skin colour is.
This... doesn't matter either way. It's strange that this is emphasised so often. That homophobia is wrong doesn't depend on homosexuality not being a choice.
The existence of a 'straight pill' would not make homophobia ok.
Don't be an asshole to people just for being different from you strikes me as a much better rule than Don't be an asshole to people just for being different from you, unless those differences are through choice.
No. You were factually wrong, and AC corrected you. You clearly do not understand herd immunity. Your immune system does not exist in a vacuum.
Thesetwo comments make the same correction, and quite rightly.
If John Doe decides not to get vaccinated and you get vaccinated, how are you at risk? John gets polio and you do not, there is no issue.
This is wrong. You absolutely are affected by an increased number of potential carriers. I don't care to be the fourth person to try to explain herd immunity, though - please, just go and read the Wikipedia article.
If you wish to argue that it is a real dilemma lets see your arguments. If you can't, then I am correct.
A spelling error (not even incorrect usage of the word!) does not exclude one from membership of the privileged group (of which you are of course a member) who are allowed to use words.
I'll try my hand at being difficult for no reason:
- You failed to make proper use of quotation marks when giving the correct spelling of the word "Hypocrites"
- You incorrectly used the word again when, in fact, this is the first time you have made your complaint
- You made an unsupported assumption regarding whether dj245 had previously seen the word in print
You're a troll, and/or a moron, but I'll bite anyway.
one can see it could be eliminated if; we went back to older standards where men worked and women stayed home to nurture family
Your solution to women not being empowered to pursue personal achievement and happiness is to... revert to a culture which prohibited women from even getting to the first rung of the ladder? Right.
For some, the urge to attempt mating is periodically overwhelming and unwelcome sex talk happens.
You use for some as if there are unfortunate individuals out there who simply can't be blamed for behaving inappropriately in the workplace. Other than in the case of genuine disorders such as Tourettes, this is just nonsense - most people manage it perfectly fine.
it solves economics problems
You think sweeping aside half the workforce of a country will benefit its economy?
You may think that cutting a family back to one income wouldnt be helpful, but, you must also consider that we live far above our means as it is and getting back to some basics would be mentally helpful and free up enough stress
A family bringing in half the money it usually would, causes a reduction in stress? I had no idea.
No, the reason it doesn't work so well is that they don't know if you're just making shit up to avoid being tortured more.
This really makes passwords an 'ideal case' for torture, if there can be such a thing: it can immediately be verified whether you're telling the truth.
I've read some stories from WWII that makes waterboarding sound very tame
Spoken like someone who's never been waterboarded.
Yes, communicating by satellite. An Iridium phone will set you back about a thousand dollars. Why should an airline company should care about a mere thousand dollars per aircraft? It's hardly a different scale of costs when the context is keeping track of airliners.
Are you Slashdotting at sea? How long does it take to load a page?
Interesting. Is southern Africa normally a problem for satellite communications? That map shows Madagascar, South Africa, and a few other nearby countries, as being entirely, err, 'unsupported'.
I bet if you enforced a €10,000,000 daily file for every day the plane's not found, then you'd see so many tracking equipment blisters and antenna spikes on a get it would look like a flying hedgehog.
You joke of course, but part of the point is that there's no need to make the aircraft look like a flying hedgehog. It's an incredibly simple thing to achieve with today's technology.
Practically speaking, yes, X would probably be a perfectly workable fallback, but it's still a problem if X's 'replacements' don't have good portability.
You have an interesting attitude considering that every license I've ever seen revokes your right to use the software if you breach the license terms.
What about the GPL? I don't think it says you lose your usage rights if you violate the terms - I think you're 'just' violating copyright... it's about distribtion, after all.
"Trusted proxy" is just a friendly euphemism which attempts to justify what may or may not be a legitimate practice, depending on what's being collected and whether or not the users are, in fact, specifically aware of it.
In this context, asshole does not mean morally objectionable.
Theo is generally thought to be an asshole in that he's tremendously disagreeable and difficult to work with, but that's not to say he's actually evil and worth boycotting.
fsck-beta might well believe, as I'm sure many of us do, that Theo is an asshole (see early history of OpenBSD) who has done some very good work.
Slashdot Mirror
If we were not allowed to discriminate against people based on their choices it would get ridiculous. "Sorry, you can't send me to jail for stealing, that's discrimination."
Firstly, I never mentioned 'allowed'. I was discussing right and wrong.
Secondly, your comparison is preposterous. Not all matters of choice are equivalent. You can't see the difference between being gay and stealing someone's stuff? Good lord, do I really have to spell it out!?
Here goes: not all choices are fair game for discrimination. Choosing to steal my stuff harms me. Choosing to marry someone else of the same sex does not. Clear about the difference now?
Religious discrimination is unfair, despite religion being a choice, correct? (At least, much more a matter of choice than sexuality. One can choose to stop going to a place of worship, even if one can't choose to simply not believe something any more. The analogy to sexuality and sex is certainly there, but it remains that people can and do adopt/convert between/abandon religions.)
it also wouldn't make homosexuality a choice. The only choice introduced would be whether or not to get rid of one's homosexuality, which is not the same thing at all.
I don't see that the difference is significant. We can compare with a disease for which there is an effective, safe, and let's say completely free, cure: refusing treatment and continuing to suffer from the disease certainly can be called a choice, even though getting the disease in the first place was not.
You're just falling for the whole bullshit package of It's only unfair to discriminate on these grounds if these grounds are involuntary.
go start an open source game engine project that supports all the new hardware tech before it comes out and see how it works out
Or, better, improve an existing FOSS game engine. There's enough fragmentation here as it is.
Being homosexual is not a life choice any more than skin colour is.
This... doesn't matter either way. It's strange that this is emphasised so often. That homophobia is wrong doesn't depend on homosexuality not being a choice.
The existence of a 'straight pill' would not make homophobia ok.
Don't be an asshole to people just for being different from you strikes me as a much better rule than Don't be an asshole to people just for being different from you, unless those differences are through choice.
No. You were factually wrong, and AC corrected you. You clearly do not understand herd immunity. Your immune system does not exist in a vacuum.
These two comments make the same correction, and quite rightly.
If John Doe decides not to get vaccinated and you get vaccinated, how are you at risk? John gets polio and you do not, there is no issue.
This is wrong. You absolutely are affected by an increased number of potential carriers. I don't care to be the fourth person to try to explain herd immunity, though - please, just go and read the Wikipedia article.
If you wish to argue that it is a real dilemma lets see your arguments. If you can't, then I am correct.
Now that's just beautiful.
Lay off the smug, over there.
A spelling error (not even incorrect usage of the word!) does not exclude one from membership of the privileged group (of which you are of course a member) who are allowed to use words.
I'll try my hand at being difficult for no reason:
Related.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Just so long as I use a spell-checker, right?
You're a troll, and/or a moron, but I'll bite anyway.
one can see it could be eliminated if; we went back to older standards where men worked and women stayed home to nurture family
Your solution to women not being empowered to pursue personal achievement and happiness is to... revert to a culture which prohibited women from even getting to the first rung of the ladder? Right.
For some, the urge to attempt mating is periodically overwhelming and unwelcome sex talk happens.
You use for some as if there are unfortunate individuals out there who simply can't be blamed for behaving inappropriately in the workplace. Other than in the case of genuine disorders such as Tourettes, this is just nonsense - most people manage it perfectly fine.
it solves economics problems
You think sweeping aside half the workforce of a country will benefit its economy?
You may think that cutting a family back to one income wouldnt be helpful, but, you must also consider that we live far above our means as it is and getting back to some basics would be mentally helpful and free up enough stress
A family bringing in half the money it usually would, causes a reduction in stress? I had no idea.
No, the reason it doesn't work so well is that they don't know if you're just making shit up to avoid being tortured more.
This really makes passwords an 'ideal case' for torture, if there can be such a thing: it can immediately be verified whether you're telling the truth.
I've read some stories from WWII that makes waterboarding sound very tame
Spoken like someone who's never been waterboarded.
There's no call for your sarcasm.
Oh, you were talking about using Iridium.
Yes, communicating by satellite. An Iridium phone will set you back about a thousand dollars. Why should an airline company should care about a mere thousand dollars per aircraft? It's hardly a different scale of costs when the context is keeping track of airliners.
Are you Slashdotting at sea? How long does it take to load a page?
Interesting. Is southern Africa normally a problem for satellite communications? That map shows Madagascar, South Africa, and a few other nearby countries, as being entirely, err, 'unsupported'.
Oops, forgot to log in.
Oops, posted as AC.
I bet if you enforced a €10,000,000 daily file for every day the plane's not found, then you'd see so many tracking equipment blisters and antenna spikes on a get it would look like a flying hedgehog.
You joke of course, but part of the point is that there's no need to make the aircraft look like a flying hedgehog. It's an incredibly simple thing to achieve with today's technology.
I'm impressed that the above-mentioned 'SPOT' can do it (using satellites) for $150 - that's barely more than the apparently-now-discontinued offering from Garmin, which used telephone networks rather than satellite.
Or just use X. Big deal.
Practically speaking, yes, X would probably be a perfectly workable fallback, but it's still a problem if X's 'replacements' don't have good portability.
security issues insist that it it should go from (write,no-execute) to (no-write,execute), every single time
This is the heart of the matter - there's no such thing as (write,execute), then?
Indeed. I was wondering if there'd be anything to gain from another project with a similar goal.
Could this be of use to the Winelib project?
(As the name implies, it's the compile-time analogue of Wine.)
the reflagging syscall would be equally frequent
Why? Couldn't they just allocate+configure a single large block of 'JIT-friendly' memory, and use that as the 'JIT heap' without repeated syscalls?
at the time of implementation it probably seemed like the simplest and fastest approach
You mean it could be engineered similar to how I've described, but might not have been for time pressure?
People need to chill out about this
you are simple minded
It was already unnecessary to be an asshole about it, but you made it ironic as well.
If you are finding yourself with a significant need for a rich library, then you should be using a higher-level language
Disagree. Unmanaged languages can be very well served by libraries. C++ with Boost, or Qt, spring to mind.
I don't follow. Can't you just contain all the JIT code in a single block, then reflag the whole block with only one syscall?
Obviously someone who has never worked with Theo.
You got me.
Theo simply does not suffer fools and will call you out for being stupid.
That is it.
I have no personal experience here, but his Wikipedia article doesn't see things the way you do.
Yeah... no-one's got the balls to do that, right?
You have an interesting attitude considering that every license I've ever seen revokes your right to use the software if you breach the license terms.
What about the GPL? I don't think it says you lose your usage rights if you violate the terms - I think you're 'just' violating copyright... it's about distribtion, after all.
"Trusted proxy" is just a friendly euphemism which attempts to justify what may or may not be a legitimate practice, depending on what's being collected and whether or not the users are, in fact, specifically aware of it.
This hits the nail on the head. Very well put.
In this context, asshole does not mean morally objectionable.
Theo is generally thought to be an asshole in that he's tremendously disagreeable and difficult to work with, but that's not to say he's actually evil and worth boycotting.
fsck-beta might well believe, as I'm sure many of us do, that Theo is an asshole (see early history of OpenBSD) who has done some very good work.