This push to get girls in tech should be aimed at the real problem which is the culture of female girls and females in general that don't take tech seriously in the first place.
Its not "culture."
This should be obvious to anyone whose lived 4 or more decades in a mixed society.
Men tend to define themselves by their actions.
Women tend to define themselves by their relationships.
Any attempt to change these natural tendencies through manipulation is a disservice to our nature, and probably should be considered criminal if the State does it.
Is it a jealousy issue? Do they not want other people to have things they don't have, so they want things they don't want banned on the grounds that they, themselves, will never have them?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Its so petty that some actively seek to make verboten certain sizes of soda. If they are willing to do that, then there really isnt any limitations on the breadth of tyranny that they will support.
support software that actively protects the users freedom by ensuring not only that the original software was transparent and user-modifiable, but also that it would protect you from being embraced, extended, and extinguished. Not everybody agrees with this position, but it is a well known and easy to understand position.
Whether or not everyone agrees with this position is irrelevant. What would be important is if this position where somehow in dangered by BSD licenses.
You are waving your hands in the air trying to get everyones attention while you claim that BSD licenses are a danger, but you actually have enever provided an argument that substantiates your claims. Therefore its your argument that is shit. All you are doing is waving your hands making claims.
while the manufacturers manage to not get sued over their supposed misappropriation of GPL code?
Because you dont have standing.
Let me sum this up for you in as clear a scenario as possible. Lets say I download source to EMACS and make a bunch of changes, compile it, and send you this new EMACS as a binary only. You then ask for the source and I refuse.
You are not a copyright holder on EMACS therefore you have no standing in a court of law. Your objections fall on deaf ears and there is nothing that you can do about it. You can't even get actual EMACS developers to complain because I didnt send them the binary and thus they also do not have standing.
RMS isn't against commercial (for profit) software at all. He's against software that is not completely transparent to the user about what it's doing (and that you can't fix yourself if it breaks).
The software that he is objecting to supporting is completely transparent.
You can also fix it if it breaks.
So then it follows that the fewer people who see them, the better.
It would only follow if there was a single class of viewer, but there isnt a single class of viewer.
Let me try a real argument along your lines:
So far these videos have been censored by the western press yet the terrorists keep making them. Therefore we can conclude that the west is not their target audience and therefore there is no reason to believe that they benefit when the western press starts showing them. It may even hurt them.
You're bitching because I didn't name the DNC specifically?
Nope. I'm pointing out that you are obviously a partisan asshole.
What I was saying was more of a generalized statement
Generalized to shaming specifically the GOP, and when pressed we get a nice progression to "the other side [also]" followed by irrational screaming when you finally have to include the DNC by name:
THE DNC ALSO ENGAGES IN GERRYMANDERING. Happy now?
Do you think that you are you intellectually honest now?
Do I get to say I'm right because it's "obvious" too?
Only when it obvious.
Now, obviously you statists are terrible at math. Thats why you dont see whats so wrong with current statism.
Its an obscene amount of per-year money, that according to the story isnt even enough for the corrupt sons of bitches. You will never get it until you actually realize how much money that is. There isnt a citation that will solve your problem. Perhaps a math class will.
Because what passes for "Libertarianism" htese days is selfish pricks that don't want anyone to tell them what to do.
Its selfish to not want to be told by someone else what to do?
It is the people that think they have an automatic right to tell others what to do that are selfish. This seems to be a common theme in politics today, where a group guilty of something like being selfish, label those that oppose them with what they themselves are actually guilty of.
It is not selfish to want to avoid other peoples tyranny. You dumb fuck.
Yes, the behavior is totally defensible because the other side does it as well.
This coming from the person that (a) was the one that brought up gerrymandering, (b) only mentioned the GOP, and (c) vilified the GOP.
A very consistent thinking process you have. You will slam them publicly when the GOP does it, but you will also make every attempt to avoid saying that the DNC is also doing it.
When confronted with your hypocrisy you shrug it off and again make sure to not directly say that the DNC is also guilty but instead say "the other side."
Intellectual honesty is only intact when its from start to finish. When it isnt from start to finish, you are just a partisan asshole.
Care to name what that is? With citations so I know you're not making it up.
I gave you the citation.
$24,617 per mile of paved road per year.
A number easily derived by anyone that can google two simple things. However, only people that care go through the trouble of googling the number of miles of paved road in the country as well as the amount of gasoline taxes collected.
If you dont think that $24K/mile/year means obvious corruption, then you are a FUCKING FOOL. Are you a fool?
Government (federal, state, and local) already levies a direct fuel tax that amounts to $65 billion/year.
This amounts to $24,617 per mile of paved road per year.
The government doesnt need more money. It needs to stop the obvious corruption that wastes this money. Stop being a statist. The state doesnt deserve any fans right now.
How about getting rid of "this light bulb uses 3 times less power than this other one!". It's not mathematically correct to say. You can day "bulb a uses 30% of the power of bulb b"
Did it occur to you that even with a high rate of inflation, stuff like drones are still getting cheaper?
I guess that only occurs to thinkers that wonder why the cost of living keeps going up even though the cost of producing keeps going down... but what do I know... I've explained why this is so repeatedly to folks like you and you deny it vigorously in order to irrationally defend your statist beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
This push to get girls in tech should be aimed at the real problem which is the culture of female girls and females in general that don't take tech seriously in the first place.
Its not "culture."
This should be obvious to anyone whose lived 4 or more decades in a mixed society.
Men tend to define themselves by their actions.
Women tend to define themselves by their relationships.
Any attempt to change these natural tendencies through manipulation is a disservice to our nature, and probably should be considered criminal if the State does it.
I would only consider a "No Fly Zone" for drones above my house if it specifically (and especially) includes Government Drones.
Even if such a law existed, the government would just break it. Probably through the "unless approved by a rubber-stamped warrant" clause of the law.
You wont believe what we renamed next.
$850,000,000 / 300 months = $2,833,333.33 per month... dipshit.
(25 years also, dipshit)
Perhaps you should go shopping...
I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.
Its not the free market which forced this specific food labeling. Are you following along at all?
The title of this story isnt "Free Market To Withdraw Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol"
Picard: "Computer, Fire at will!"
-> Commander Riker is suddenly shot down by an automated defense phaser mounted on a security turret.
Picard: "What the..."
-> Computer: "Please restate your question"
Worf: "His death was without honor"
Is it a jealousy issue? Do they not want other people to have things they don't have, so they want things they don't want banned on the grounds that they, themselves, will never have them?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Its so petty that some actively seek to make verboten certain sizes of soda. If they are willing to do that, then there really isnt any limitations on the breadth of tyranny that they will support.
support software that actively protects the users freedom by ensuring not only that the original software was transparent and user-modifiable, but also that it would protect you from being embraced, extended, and extinguished. Not everybody agrees with this position, but it is a well known and easy to understand position.
Whether or not everyone agrees with this position is irrelevant. What would be important is if this position where somehow in dangered by BSD licenses.
You are waving your hands in the air trying to get everyones attention while you claim that BSD licenses are a danger, but you actually have enever provided an argument that substantiates your claims. Therefore its your argument that is shit. All you are doing is waving your hands making claims.
while the manufacturers manage to not get sued over their supposed misappropriation of GPL code?
Because you dont have standing.
Let me sum this up for you in as clear a scenario as possible. Lets say I download source to EMACS and make a bunch of changes, compile it, and send you this new EMACS as a binary only. You then ask for the source and I refuse.
You are not a copyright holder on EMACS therefore you have no standing in a court of law. Your objections fall on deaf ears and there is nothing that you can do about it. You can't even get actual EMACS developers to complain because I didnt send them the binary and thus they also do not have standing.
RMS isn't against commercial (for profit) software at all. He's against software that is not completely transparent to the user about what it's doing (and that you can't fix yourself if it breaks).
The software that he is objecting to supporting is completely transparent.
You can also fix it if it breaks.
Here is the god damned svn: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-proje...
So why is he complaining here? What we can take from this is that your comments are worthless shit.
So then it follows that the fewer people who see them, the better.
It would only follow if there was a single class of viewer, but there isnt a single class of viewer.
Let me try a real argument along your lines:
So far these videos have been censored by the western press yet the terrorists keep making them. Therefore we can conclude that the west is not their target audience and therefore there is no reason to believe that they benefit when the western press starts showing them. It may even hurt them.
It's one thing to know that someone was brutally executed and quite another to see it.
You're bitching because I didn't name the DNC specifically?
Nope. I'm pointing out that you are obviously a partisan asshole.
What I was saying was more of a generalized statement
Generalized to shaming specifically the GOP, and when pressed we get a nice progression to "the other side [also]" followed by irrational screaming when you finally have to include the DNC by name:
THE DNC ALSO ENGAGES IN GERRYMANDERING. Happy now?
Do you think that you are you intellectually honest now?
Do I get to say I'm right because it's "obvious" too?
Only when it obvious.
Now, obviously you statists are terrible at math. Thats why you dont see whats so wrong with current statism.
Its an obscene amount of per-year money, that according to the story isnt even enough for the corrupt sons of bitches. You will never get it until you actually realize how much money that is. There isnt a citation that will solve your problem. Perhaps a math class will.
Because what passes for "Libertarianism" htese days is selfish pricks that don't want anyone to tell them what to do.
Its selfish to not want to be told by someone else what to do?
It is the people that think they have an automatic right to tell others what to do that are selfish. This seems to be a common theme in politics today, where a group guilty of something like being selfish, label those that oppose them with what they themselves are actually guilty of.
It is not selfish to want to avoid other peoples tyranny. You dumb fuck.
Yes, the behavior is totally defensible because the other side does it as well.
This coming from the person that (a) was the one that brought up gerrymandering, (b) only mentioned the GOP, and (c) vilified the GOP.
A very consistent thinking process you have. You will slam them publicly when the GOP does it, but you will also make every attempt to avoid saying that the DNC is also doing it.
When confronted with your hypocrisy you shrug it off and again make sure to not directly say that the DNC is also guilty but instead say "the other side."
Intellectual honesty is only intact when its from start to finish. When it isnt from start to finish, you are just a partisan asshole.
Care to name what that is? With citations so I know you're not making it up.
I gave you the citation.
$24,617 per mile of paved road per year.
A number easily derived by anyone that can google two simple things. However, only people that care go through the trouble of googling the number of miles of paved road in the country as well as the amount of gasoline taxes collected.
If you dont think that $24K/mile/year means obvious corruption, then you are a FUCKING FOOL. Are you a fool?
The gasoline taxes alone amounts to $24,617 per mile of paved road per year.
Government (federal, state, and local) already levies a direct fuel tax that amounts to $65 billion/year.
This amounts to $24,617 per mile of paved road per year.
The government doesnt need more money. It needs to stop the obvious corruption that wastes this money. Stop being a statist. The state doesnt deserve any fans right now.
I don't think it's an overreaction. Everything went by the book.
Yes but the book is titled "The Big Book of Overreactions"
How about getting rid of "this light bulb uses 3 times less power than this other one!". It's not mathematically correct to say. You can day "bulb a uses 30% of the power of bulb b"
I find that your solution is over 3% wrong...
what about WASD? or ESDF?
Movement with a single hand. Both are fine.
Whoever designed this ignored a whole shitload of intuitive precedent
Do you mean "intuitive" like D for left and K for right? If not, then what are you trying to say?
WASD dates back to at least the early 1980's (Wizardry for instance.) Not using WASD is what ignores "precedent."
Seriously.. 35+ years of WASD. You're ignorance involves missing more than a few decades.
Did it occur to you that even with a high rate of inflation, stuff like drones are still getting cheaper?
I guess that only occurs to thinkers that wonder why the cost of living keeps going up even though the cost of producing keeps going down... but what do I know... I've explained why this is so repeatedly to folks like you and you deny it vigorously in order to irrationally defend your statist beliefs.
Those are decent keys for someone who keeps their fingers on the Qwerty home row.
No, they aren't.
This is obvious to anyone that has ever played a computer game.
The book apparently also isnt for people that think these are stupid choices:
D key for left
K key for right
J key for jump
Apparently people who program HTML5/JavaScript have some really fucked up keyboards.