Maybe folks who object to well-intentioned laws arent cold heardless jerks after all; maybe theres valid reasons to think that "more regulation" isnt the universal right answer.
m$ have signalled what is unfortunately the end of gaming & our rights
If only there were an open platform with standardized, interchangeable hardware existing in a highly competitive ecosystem, your choice of operating system, and the ability to choose where you get your games and whether to participate in an online community.
Just remember the phone company already has these records and if it's legal they're trying to monetize the data already.
That isnt relevant to the legality of it.
If a cop wants access to your papers, "just remember that you already have these records"... but the 4th amendment blocks the government from gaining access to them without a warrant.
I suppose a company might voluntarily disclose their records, but I think that creates all sorts of other issues.
I dont suppose you know what that "(neologism, perjorative)" bit is about, do you?
Hint, it doesnt mean "people like being called that". I dont know of anyone who "reasonably" thinks that a word associated with the sex act is a fair label for their political movement.
When I said functional, I was referring to "reproductive"-- ie, their primary function. You can move nerves around, you can move flesh around, and you can inject new hormones, but you cant make testes into overies, you cant give a man functioning mammaries, and you cant change the fact that his skeletal and muscular structure is that of a man.
All of the changes you mention are, as I said, cosmetic.
I rather think that when my drivers license says "sex", they arent asking about my personality or desires. Theyre asking for an piece of identifying information that will generally not change.
One of my requirements was the need to handle a F-F marriage with kids in the family.... Amazingly, there were few choices that met an important requirement that I had.... genealogy
I hope you guys get a chance to know a transgendered person at some point, it might change your attitudes.
Unless we've made some massive, unreported advances, "transgendering" refers to "a lot of plastic surgery and hormone therapy". Your body still produces your "default" hormones, you will never have functional sex organs for the other gender, and your chromosomes will always be what they were. Their gender does not change; its their appearance that changes.
In a similar way, I dont think a castrated man should be considered "no longer male" or "less male", or that an infertile or flat-chested woman is "not a woman".
Do really want to devolve to defining gender in such a shallow and cosmetic fashion?
The entitlement should be that anyone who gives birth or (or perhaps adopts) a baby is entitled to the leave.
Theres a pretty specific and good reason maternity leave is given more often than paternity leave. It has something to do with the ordeal the mother went through, and with a particular set of secondary sex characteristics.
Assuming its possible to surgically change your eyecolor (Im not sure that it is), your eyes would actually be a different color.
No amount of surgery can change the chromosomes a person has, or give functional sex organs from the opposite sex. Such surgery is cosmetic, and involves hormone therapy because your body doesnt produce those hormones. Any guesses as to why that might be?
For what its worth, I find it fairly obnoxious that games like SC2 and LoL find it necessary to have every. single. woman dressed up in armor that can at best be described as inadequate and proportions that are best described as more than adequate; its not just women who find it irritating
Queue the folks who will declare me to either be lying or homosexual, a la this post.
Ive never really heard a consistent stance for or against child protective services from "republicans"-- I dont think Ive even ever heard it brought up as an issue.
Education-wise, again, I dont think there is a single "republican" stance, but if one were to generalize voucher programs and the right to homeschool (which tends to score VERY high on all tests) would tend to be popular.
Generally conservatives are going to tend to think that the government has no business dealing with child nutrition (as that would be a parents job). Saying "I think children should be raised by the parent with minimal government intervention" doesnt mean someone hates children, it means they agree with the majority of human societies throughout history.
That is why it is a strawman. Youve taken issues that there simply isnt a single "republican stance" on, and twisted what you consider a common one into a crude straw man ("theyre against child nutrition"; "theyre against child protection"). Noone holds the stance that children should be fed, educated or protected, they just dont agree that a lot of that stuff is fundamentally the government's job.
Anyone claiming that somehow all republicans hate children lives in an echo chamber and doesnt know any actual republicans.
Actually the government has shown it will attack a particular political group. ( IRS scandal)
Yes, but that generally only works when theres plausible deniability and you arent sure you've been targetted.
What would your general thought process be if the kill switch was hit on your phone? "Gee, I must have done that accidentally, surely nothing suspicious here"?
Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back. Eliminating the stolen phone market will prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place.
Im also not getting the concern over govt abuse. How / why would gov't use a kill switch? If you want to track someone, isnt that the LAST thing they would do? Its not exactly subtle, you would immediately know if it was used.
Vegetable is a culinary term that includes mushrooms (which are fungi), tomatoes (which are classified scientifically as fruits), and olives (likewise technically fruits).
And thats all irrelevant; the classic pro-life position is that abortion kills a fetus (which is not up for debate, it does), and that that fetus deserves to be protected.
Somehow this is being translated into "GOP hates children", which is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe folks who object to well-intentioned laws arent cold heardless jerks after all; maybe theres valid reasons to think that "more regulation" isnt the universal right answer.
m$ have signalled what is unfortunately the end of gaming & our rights
If only there were an open platform with standardized, interchangeable hardware existing in a highly competitive ecosystem, your choice of operating system, and the ability to choose where you get your games and whether to participate in an online community.
Someone should make one of those.
"someone from the NSA" did speak about this, to confirm that he was not at liberty to speak about this.
Just remember the phone company already has these records and if it's legal they're trying to monetize the data already.
That isnt relevant to the legality of it.
If a cop wants access to your papers, "just remember that you already have these records"... but the 4th amendment blocks the government from gaining access to them without a warrant.
I suppose a company might voluntarily disclose their records, but I think that creates all sorts of other issues.
I dont suppose you know what that "(neologism, perjorative)" bit is about, do you?
Hint, it doesnt mean "people like being called that". I dont know of anyone who "reasonably" thinks that a word associated with the sex act is a fair label for their political movement.
When I said functional, I was referring to "reproductive"-- ie, their primary function. You can move nerves around, you can move flesh around, and you can inject new hormones, but you cant make testes into overies, you cant give a man functioning mammaries, and you cant change the fact that his skeletal and muscular structure is that of a man.
All of the changes you mention are, as I said, cosmetic.
I rather think that when my drivers license says "sex", they arent asking about my personality or desires. Theyre asking for an piece of identifying information that will generally not change.
You do realize that there is no surgery that gives you functional ovaries or testes if you werent born with them, right?
Are you really suggesting that "its common" for the doctor to have to decide what reproductive organs a person has?
Trans people are people too.
I dont think anyone is arguing that theyre not; however this...
It is not a choice. It's who someone is. A lot of people feel like they're not in either one of the two "Gender" categories.
Is irrelevant. No amount of wanting will change your "default" hormonal state, or give you functional sex organs from your chosen gender.
Im just curious. How common, statistically, are all of those disorders combined?
One of my requirements was the need to handle a F-F marriage with kids in the family. ... Amazingly, there were few choices that met an important requirement that I had.... genealogy
I think I solved the mystery.
I hope you guys get a chance to know a transgendered person at some point, it might change your attitudes.
Unless we've made some massive, unreported advances, "transgendering" refers to "a lot of plastic surgery and hormone therapy". Your body still produces your "default" hormones, you will never have functional sex organs for the other gender, and your chromosomes will always be what they were. Their gender does not change; its their appearance that changes.
In a similar way, I dont think a castrated man should be considered "no longer male" or "less male", or that an infertile or flat-chested woman is "not a woman".
Do really want to devolve to defining gender in such a shallow and cosmetic fashion?
The entitlement should be that anyone who gives birth or (or perhaps adopts) a baby is entitled to the leave.
Theres a pretty specific and good reason maternity leave is given more often than paternity leave. It has something to do with the ordeal the mother went through, and with a particular set of secondary sex characteristics.
Assuming its possible to surgically change your eyecolor (Im not sure that it is), your eyes would actually be a different color.
No amount of surgery can change the chromosomes a person has, or give functional sex organs from the opposite sex. Such surgery is cosmetic, and involves hormone therapy because your body doesnt produce those hormones. Any guesses as to why that might be?
For what its worth, I find it fairly obnoxious that games like SC2 and LoL find it necessary to have every. single. woman dressed up in armor that can at best be described as inadequate and proportions that are best described as more than adequate; its not just women who find it irritating
Queue the folks who will declare me to either be lying or homosexual, a la this post.
What percentage, would you say, of cases does that represent?
Would you say that is a significant portion of the population, statistically?
Ive never really heard a consistent stance for or against child protective services from "republicans"-- I dont think Ive even ever heard it brought up as an issue.
Education-wise, again, I dont think there is a single "republican" stance, but if one were to generalize voucher programs and the right to homeschool (which tends to score VERY high on all tests) would tend to be popular.
Generally conservatives are going to tend to think that the government has no business dealing with child nutrition (as that would be a parents job). Saying "I think children should be raised by the parent with minimal government intervention" doesnt mean someone hates children, it means they agree with the majority of human societies throughout history.
That is why it is a strawman. Youve taken issues that there simply isnt a single "republican stance" on, and twisted what you consider a common one into a crude straw man ("theyre against child nutrition"; "theyre against child protection"). Noone holds the stance that children should be fed, educated or protected, they just dont agree that a lot of that stuff is fundamentally the government's job.
Anyone claiming that somehow all republicans hate children lives in an echo chamber and doesnt know any actual republicans.
Actually the government has shown it will attack a particular political group. ( IRS scandal)
Yes, but that generally only works when theres plausible deniability and you arent sure you've been targetted.
What would your general thought process be if the kill switch was hit on your phone? "Gee, I must have done that accidentally, surely nothing suspicious here"?
The same could be said about posting as an AC. Ive come out and stated my views under my account; why so afraid to state your views under yours?
No?
What kind of strawman are you trying to build here?
We have people getting groped at airports because they want to get on a plane. You call spying in the name of terrorist "outlandish"?
Something bugs me when people come to a potentially valid conclusion using the most ridiculous and broken logic.
One department does X bad things, so this other department must be doing Y! Makes perfect sense!
Of course you'd get obstruction charges if used during an active case, same as if you smashed your phone.
Not getting how thats an argument against the feature.
Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back. Eliminating the stolen phone market will prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place.
Im also not getting the concern over govt abuse. How / why would gov't use a kill switch? If you want to track someone, isnt that the LAST thing they would do? Its not exactly subtle, you would immediately know if it was used.
Vegetable is a culinary term that includes mushrooms (which are fungi), tomatoes (which are classified scientifically as fruits), and olives (likewise technically fruits).
Not sure I could come up with any others.
Pretty sure we have contraception and abstinence.
And thats all irrelevant; the classic pro-life position is that abortion kills a fetus (which is not up for debate, it does), and that that fetus deserves to be protected.
Somehow this is being translated into "GOP hates children", which is laughable.