So what should we do? Lock them in an ever-shrinking reserve instead where they can never expand or improve their current lives? Perhaps we should plant some hidden cameras in this new era of zoos.
Were it technologically possible it would be a hit, yes. Unfortunately you can't just jam CPUs and memory into a matrix of pin holes where ever and how ever you want. Tight integration out performs modularity every time. Closer together, less interconnects to go through, etc. CPU sockets change faster than most high end phones' shelf lives.
If any product ever comes out of this all I predict it will be is a modular camera (of which only one module will ever be produced). Possibly a storage module if they think no one will notice that SD cards are a better fit for that. Maybe a choice between a full screen and a half keyboard faceplate but that seems unlikely in today's market.
Pick and place phone components just aren't feasible. The fact that this "progress" video was all about magnets and 3D printing cases demonstrates that better than I ever could.
Because nothing screams "this isn't vaporware" like "we discovered magnets stick together". As if keeping things in place was the major road block for this endeavor.
So you think those racists were justified in their actions and were not immorally oppressing black folks?
If you don't like it you can go back to Africa, nigger. <- This is the problem with using populous opinions to demonise those you don't like. People always feel they're justified when they are doing it and always feel oppressed when they are having it done to them. Let's try using brains instead of brawn for once.
I would consider my employment not being threatened by my political beliefs or advocacy a 'right', yes. I never said it was illegal- only that it was immoral. Which I know everyone in favour of it now would agree with were roles reversed.
You might have a point if Mozilla banned gay employees.
If someone that worked at a local business had the opinion that smoking should be banned would it be okay to try to force that company to fire them with your more populous opinion? How about if a local business employee thought that blacks should be able to drink at the same water fountain but the local community didn't like that idea so got the person fired?
I will not agree with the use of underhanded and immoral tactics just to get my way. It is wrong when others do it and it is still wrong even if the power dynamic has shifted and put you in the driver's seat. Bigotry cannot be fought that way.
This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views. I don't care what you do but trying to use your social clout to strong arm a group is something we've seen in the past. It's a dangerous road to go down and I know you'd agree if it was some powerful homophobic group putting pressure on a company for having a homosexual employee. Remember when the American government (your government I assume?) had to step in and put an end to voluntary racial segregation? Now that power roles are reversed you think that it is okay.
You should ease up on the strawman tactics at the end there. What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Yes, that is the same scummy move and people vilify them for it too. Did you actually mean to make the point of: Well this group pretty much everyone here hates does this same stuff so it must be alright?
Boycotts are not criticism. They are a method of forcing an entity to do something they do not want to. Everybody was free to criticize the bigoted bill (and they exercised that freedom). People going "Hey Mozilla, wouldn't it be a shame if everyone thought you were a homophobic company?" is not criticism.
I'm saying that you can't fight racists by being as wrong as they are. You think you can tell a racist person that there's no such thing as races and they'll just concede?
There's no hard definition of species either but I assure you that I am not a cabbage. In the world of biological sciences: "close enough to be useful" is sometimes the best you're going to get.
Finding provided nourishment and provided shelter is actually almost exactly the extent of intelligence I would attribute to chickens. How could a living animal possibly be less intelligent and not die?
Care to point out where I made a strawman argument? Replace "boss" with "young adult in a leadership position" and the point stands. No effective leader is handed leadership on a silver platter. How is banning a word really going to help women. How exactly do you ban a word from a specific usage anyway? The whole thing screams of knee jerk reactions, lack of thought and completely impossible goals. Which are all really bad traits for leaders.
No one gets called bossy solely for being female! They may get called bossy for actually being bossy (not a gender issue) or maybe for giving a command someone does not like (also not a gender issue). This is about people not liking criticism and using a social movement with lots of clout as a pulpit for complaining.
"Underlying issues around particular words". How much cognitive dissonance do you have to suffer through to type that? In what universe do you think "particular words" can utterly crush a leader? "Cold war over guys, the Ruskies called us capitalist pigs. How can we fight against such unwavering oppression." The entire concept is complete nonsense. This is petulant children running to mommy and daddy (some higher authority figure in this case) and screaming "they called me a bad word!" Definitely leadership material.
And in what world do you think your red herring about what you think women in the 50s were like helps make your point?
You go right ahead and call your male boss a cocksucker. Then you can go on to explain that it's totally alright because you weren't challenging his authority. Bonus points if you add: "it's not like you're a woman- why are you mad?" (which appears to be your point here)
Men get called names all the time for "merely exercising their authority"- sometimes even "bossy". Do you really believe women are so pathetic that they can't deal with the consequences of authority? What happens when a woman is genuinely a terrible leader? Are they immune to criticism because it might hurt some other woman's feelings?
This whole campaign was so horribly ill-conceived from the get-go that it would be funny if not so sad. "Let's show how great women can lead by publicly advertising they are incapable of taking criticism". I'm offended by that idiocy and I'm a man.
You're first problem is equating hulahooping with stripping. Your second problem is feeling entitled to holding everybody else down because you do not think you are attractive enough to get the same attention.
"Bossy" is probably less offensive than anything I've ever called a male boss that behaved like a dick. If a word like "bossy" is preventing you from being a leader then you just aren't leadership material. If you try to ban words as a means to assert your dominance- you aren't leadership material. But that does make you bossy.
You get modded down because you use misleading information and outright lies to push your painfully obvious agenda. Everybody that reads Slashdot with any kind of frequency came into this article knowing full well you would be here spin-spin-spinning.
If ever there is any support given to one of the United States' "enemies" or anything bad said about the NSA you are on that like white on rice. You set off everybody's bullshit detector because you make defending the party-line your Slashdot persona.
Parents hoist their children up by the armpits and allow the children to direct themselves with the movement of their feet and legs all the time. Probably not the best example unless you actually think an IDE is literally always a crutch.
Then look it up. "They" has been used in the singular sense for as long as "you" has. "You" is also a plural pronoun. That your teachers proclaimed "they" to be only plural does not make it so.
It's no more incorrect than aluminum. Many dialects still use aks- it is obviously still in use and therefore not 'wrong' (a meaningless word in this context). Your ignorance is not a replacement for facts.
You probably shouldn't be so brazenly pompous about your ignorance of linguistics. If you knew anything about the etymology of the verb 'ask' you would know it was often spelt 'ax' or 'acs'. It is a perfectly valid dialectical pronunciation of the word even from a prescriptivist standpoint. The concept is described here.
Slashdot Mirror
So what should we do? Lock them in an ever-shrinking reserve instead where they can never expand or improve their current lives? Perhaps we should plant some hidden cameras in this new era of zoos.
Were it technologically possible it would be a hit, yes. Unfortunately you can't just jam CPUs and memory into a matrix of pin holes where ever and how ever you want. Tight integration out performs modularity every time. Closer together, less interconnects to go through, etc. CPU sockets change faster than most high end phones' shelf lives.
If any product ever comes out of this all I predict it will be is a modular camera (of which only one module will ever be produced). Possibly a storage module if they think no one will notice that SD cards are a better fit for that. Maybe a choice between a full screen and a half keyboard faceplate but that seems unlikely in today's market.
Pick and place phone components just aren't feasible. The fact that this "progress" video was all about magnets and 3D printing cases demonstrates that better than I ever could.
Because nothing screams "this isn't vaporware" like "we discovered magnets stick together". As if keeping things in place was the major road block for this endeavor.
So you think those racists were justified in their actions and were not immorally oppressing black folks?
If you don't like it you can go back to Africa, nigger. <- This is the problem with using populous opinions to demonise those you don't like. People always feel they're justified when they are doing it and always feel oppressed when they are having it done to them. Let's try using brains instead of brawn for once.
I would consider my employment not being threatened by my political beliefs or advocacy a 'right', yes. I never said it was illegal- only that it was immoral. Which I know everyone in favour of it now would agree with were roles reversed.
You might have a point if Mozilla banned gay employees.
If someone that worked at a local business had the opinion that smoking should be banned would it be okay to try to force that company to fire them with your more populous opinion? How about if a local business employee thought that blacks should be able to drink at the same water fountain but the local community didn't like that idea so got the person fired?
I will not agree with the use of underhanded and immoral tactics just to get my way. It is wrong when others do it and it is still wrong even if the power dynamic has shifted and put you in the driver's seat. Bigotry cannot be fought that way.
This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views. I don't care what you do but trying to use your social clout to strong arm a group is something we've seen in the past. It's a dangerous road to go down and I know you'd agree if it was some powerful homophobic group putting pressure on a company for having a homosexual employee. Remember when the American government (your government I assume?) had to step in and put an end to voluntary racial segregation? Now that power roles are reversed you think that it is okay.
You should ease up on the strawman tactics at the end there. What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
I've never used that tactic. You don't get to justify actions you know are wrong because they did it to you. Be better.
Yes, that is the same scummy move and people vilify them for it too. Did you actually mean to make the point of: Well this group pretty much everyone here hates does this same stuff so it must be alright?
Boycotts are not criticism. They are a method of forcing an entity to do something they do not want to. Everybody was free to criticize the bigoted bill (and they exercised that freedom). People going "Hey Mozilla, wouldn't it be a shame if everyone thought you were a homophobic company?" is not criticism.
Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.
I'm saying that you can't fight racists by being as wrong as they are. You think you can tell a racist person that there's no such thing as races and they'll just concede?
There's no hard definition of species either but I assure you that I am not a cabbage. In the world of biological sciences: "close enough to be useful" is sometimes the best you're going to get.
Finding provided nourishment and provided shelter is actually almost exactly the extent of intelligence I would attribute to chickens. How could a living animal possibly be less intelligent and not die?
Care to point out where I made a strawman argument? Replace "boss" with "young adult in a leadership position" and the point stands. No effective leader is handed leadership on a silver platter. How is banning a word really going to help women. How exactly do you ban a word from a specific usage anyway? The whole thing screams of knee jerk reactions, lack of thought and completely impossible goals. Which are all really bad traits for leaders.
No one gets called bossy solely for being female! They may get called bossy for actually being bossy (not a gender issue) or maybe for giving a command someone does not like (also not a gender issue). This is about people not liking criticism and using a social movement with lots of clout as a pulpit for complaining.
"Underlying issues around particular words". How much cognitive dissonance do you have to suffer through to type that? In what universe do you think "particular words" can utterly crush a leader? "Cold war over guys, the Ruskies called us capitalist pigs. How can we fight against such unwavering oppression." The entire concept is complete nonsense. This is petulant children running to mommy and daddy (some higher authority figure in this case) and screaming "they called me a bad word!" Definitely leadership material.
And in what world do you think your red herring about what you think women in the 50s were like helps make your point?
You go right ahead and call your male boss a cocksucker. Then you can go on to explain that it's totally alright because you weren't challenging his authority. Bonus points if you add: "it's not like you're a woman- why are you mad?" (which appears to be your point here)
Men get called names all the time for "merely exercising their authority"- sometimes even "bossy". Do you really believe women are so pathetic that they can't deal with the consequences of authority? What happens when a woman is genuinely a terrible leader? Are they immune to criticism because it might hurt some other woman's feelings?
This whole campaign was so horribly ill-conceived from the get-go that it would be funny if not so sad. "Let's show how great women can lead by publicly advertising they are incapable of taking criticism". I'm offended by that idiocy and I'm a man.
You're first problem is equating hulahooping with stripping. Your second problem is feeling entitled to holding everybody else down because you do not think you are attractive enough to get the same attention.
"Bossy" is probably less offensive than anything I've ever called a male boss that behaved like a dick. If a word like "bossy" is preventing you from being a leader then you just aren't leadership material. If you try to ban words as a means to assert your dominance- you aren't leadership material. But that does make you bossy.
Well yeah- she isn't very reliable at pedaling.
You get modded down because you use misleading information and outright lies to push your painfully obvious agenda. Everybody that reads Slashdot with any kind of frequency came into this article knowing full well you would be here spin-spin-spinning.
If ever there is any support given to one of the United States' "enemies" or anything bad said about the NSA you are on that like white on rice. You set off everybody's bullshit detector because you make defending the party-line your Slashdot persona.
Parents hoist their children up by the armpits and allow the children to direct themselves with the movement of their feet and legs all the time. Probably not the best example unless you actually think an IDE is literally always a crutch.
Then look it up. "They" has been used in the singular sense for as long as "you" has. "You" is also a plural pronoun. That your teachers proclaimed "they" to be only plural does not make it so.
It's no more incorrect than aluminum. Many dialects still use aks- it is obviously still in use and therefore not 'wrong' (a meaningless word in this context). Your ignorance is not a replacement for facts.
You probably shouldn't be so brazenly pompous about your ignorance of linguistics. If you knew anything about the etymology of the verb 'ask' you would know it was often spelt 'ax' or 'acs'. It is a perfectly valid dialectical pronunciation of the word even from a prescriptivist standpoint. The concept is described here.