Hm, yes I'd have to agree. I'm always getting that 'You're obsessed.' bit. I plan things out. I organize and focus on one task for a while then I move to another task. I've always seen this as multi-tasking but apparently real multi-tasking means doing a half-dozen things at once and none of them particularly well.
Feminism isn't being hypocritical here so much as its being incompetent. Not that that makes a big difference in the results. The solution, at least from a feminist perspective, would be to get equality in gender roles instead of trying to monopolize the nurturing role as well as expand into the provider role.
That is, if feminism is serious about this it needs to accept that it's a good thing for a man to provide the primary child care, get child support, etc. This isn't very popular among feminists let alone the mainstream.
Something has to give but most women that I know won't budge on this issue. At this point I'd say resistance to change comes more from women than men even with all the Mr. Mom jokes
It's not so much that as the fact that the Air Force is still, to some extent, the force that uses an 'Ivory Tower' approach to things. That is they are somewhat distanced from reality relative to the other forces.
There's been a saying in the military for decades. "The Navy starts the war and the Marines finish it." It's the same thing with the Air Force and the Army.
That's probably why the Air Force attracts so many future politician/social hacker types like the Evangelicals.
always prefix and end your conversations with "yes sir" and "no sir".
This has always baffled me about you Americans, you viciously and readily proclaim yourselves as a nation of citizens over state power and the freest people on earth, but every single time a thread like this comes up people say baffling things like the above.
It's because we either know or strongly suspect that those 'Land of the free' and 'By the people for the people' things are just slogans and should not be taken too seriously. We know that when all is said and done it all comes down to their word against yours and if they are police or other authorities or are sufficiently popular/wealthy/influential then that's 2 strikes against you already.
That sounds about right. Tech. has probably done more to liberate humanity as a whole than any philosophy or religion. Of course, upon liberation, we've generally done a pretty good job of enslaving ourselves to other things.
Yes. This battle is won but the war continues and the fact that this battle got to this point is a serious concern. Governments tend to grow and a government that can propose this sort of thing with a straight face.. Well it should be frightening.
It really should not have been a matter of 'bowing to pressure' it should have been laughed off the floor upon introduction.
Truth. I'm not a fan of MS but it does seem that they cannot win with this. People just want the trains to run on time and they'll get that and damn the consequences.
I've noticed one thing that may contribute to confusion here. My browser was dog slow and I mean sometimes it would take 10-15 seconds just for the save file dialog to close. I had, until recently, considered this to be a poorly done plugin because back when I installed the system it was much faster.
Recently I heard about the above mentioned speed difference but what I was seeing was just too great to be explained by that. I noticed a lot of stuff was unchecked under private data settings so I cleared it and now it's much faster than it was.
Granted, it's a completely different thing but this could be one reason for the perception that the compiler related performance difference persists.
Freedom of speech includes the right to waive that freedom in particular cases. NDA's for example.
This is not censorship or a ban on free speech.
This is a questionable practice, it's doomed to fail because anonymity makes it unenforceable, it's counter productive, it's idiotic, but it is not a violation of freedom of speech.
Indeed. To anyone who is naive enough to wonder why privacy and anonymity matter on the net and elsewhere here it is. They give us a valuable tool to deal with what amount to guerilla attacks upon fundamental rights.
Defense in depth. Because sometimes you cannot count upon people to be honest.
Western society is decadent. We care about image to the exclusion of all else. This means, among other things, that you can get away with almost anything provided you have enough influence.
There is no such thing, unless you're going to allow no access at all to the data. The best you can hope for is to make it difficult enough that non-technical doctors won't know how or won't care to circumvent your road blocks.
That would be good enough. Most security breaches come from convenience. Things like Flash drives walking out the door and such. When we have a system that's as secure as a good filing cabinet we can call it secure. As it is now we might as well just put the files in a public library in some cases.
Would you care to estimate the percentage of end users who will copy&paste everything from this shiny new fully-encrypted fully-audited health records management system into their personal collection of word docs and excel sheets?
Probably about the same as those who do it now.
That is if the system is not done right. And yes it probably won't be. I've described secure systems to people before and it's rare to get past the "No removable drives or personal files allowed." part before they start campaigning to neuter it.
A real secure system would prevent this sort of thing but the odds that we'll ever actually develop the spine needed to implement such a system are close to zero.
it shouldn't, but it will. there will always be intolerant idiots, and what do you hope to prove by trying to get into a fight with them?
even if 99% of the people don't have a problem with it, 1 in 100 is still a lot of people online you're picking a fight with. why not just shut up about it, and not provoke those people?
and who is at fault? the ones causing all the trouble over it? or the one shoving it in their face while they'd rather just not know? imo both are just as wrong
Hm, you know I was defending Microsoft until I read this. They did say that this was about sexuality, not orientation, after all. Then again, why should I take part in a fight for a group of people who just shoved it in our faces?. I wouldn't want to provoke those intolerant of my ideas after all. It's not like I should be arrogant enough to force my pro-private property beliefs upon them let alone my personal conviction that they should enforce standards objectively
If I read it right that would net the same result. It wasn't the sexual orientation that did it it was the reference to sexuality period. Assuming they aren't just trying to cover their asses that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. Yes this would be the 'Brazil' solution.
"I'm sorry Mr Jones, our database says that you are a statistical outlier and that you should be dead by now."
*pulls out gun*
"You must become compliant."
Hm, yes I'd have to agree. I'm always getting that 'You're obsessed.' bit. I plan things out. I organize and focus on one task for a while then I move to another task. I've always seen this as multi-tasking but apparently real multi-tasking means doing a half-dozen things at once and none of them particularly well.
Oh God! Mental note: Don't hire anyone from Liberty University, VA.
From google: Founded in 1971, LU is an independent, fundamentalist Baptist university located in Lynchburg, Virginia.
It's a fundamentalist sandbox.
Feminism isn't being hypocritical here so much as its being incompetent. Not that that makes a big difference in the results. The solution, at least from a feminist perspective, would be to get equality in gender roles instead of trying to monopolize the nurturing role as well as expand into the provider role.
That is, if feminism is serious about this it needs to accept that it's a good thing for a man to provide the primary child care, get child support, etc. This isn't very popular among feminists let alone the mainstream.
Something has to give but most women that I know won't budge on this issue. At this point I'd say resistance to change comes more from women than men even with all the Mr. Mom jokes
Seconded. I was there and NOW always supported the ERA. It was mostly the action of southern and midwestern fundamentalists that killed it.
Seconded. Past a certain point it just becomes paperwork and bureaucracy.
It's not so much that as the fact that the Air Force is still, to some extent, the force that uses an 'Ivory Tower' approach to things. That is they are somewhat distanced from reality relative to the other forces.
There's been a saying in the military for decades. "The Navy starts the war and the Marines finish it." It's the same thing with the Air Force and the Army.
That's probably why the Air Force attracts so many future politician/social hacker types like the Evangelicals.
always prefix and end your conversations with "yes sir" and "no sir".
This has always baffled me about you Americans, you viciously and readily proclaim yourselves as a nation of citizens over state power and the freest people on earth, but every single time a thread like this comes up people say baffling things like the above.
It's because we either know or strongly suspect that those 'Land of the free' and 'By the people for the people' things are just slogans and should not be taken too seriously. We know that when all is said and done it all comes down to their word against yours and if they are police or other authorities or are sufficiently popular/wealthy/influential then that's 2 strikes against you already.
That sounds about right. Tech. has probably done more to liberate humanity as a whole than any philosophy or religion. Of course, upon liberation, we've generally done a pretty good job of enslaving ourselves to other things.
Yes. This battle is won but the war continues and the fact that this battle got to this point is a serious concern. Governments tend to grow and a government that can propose this sort of thing with a straight face.. Well it should be frightening.
It really should not have been a matter of 'bowing to pressure' it should have been laughed off the floor upon introduction.
Truth. I'm not a fan of MS but it does seem that they cannot win with this. People just want the trains to run on time and they'll get that and damn the consequences.
I'm still using v2 and this is the output of 'ps -A u' for firefox;
2369 2.0 9.0 294940 188736 ? Sl 07:29 12:07 /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin
I've noticed one thing that may contribute to confusion here. My browser was dog slow and I mean sometimes it would take 10-15 seconds just for the save file dialog to close. I had, until recently, considered this to be a poorly done plugin because back when I installed the system it was much faster.
Recently I heard about the above mentioned speed difference but what I was seeing was just too great to be explained by that. I noticed a lot of stuff was unchecked under private data settings so I cleared it and now it's much faster than it was.
Granted, it's a completely different thing but this could be one reason for the perception that the compiler related performance difference persists.
Freedom of speech includes the right to waive that freedom in particular cases. NDA's for example.
This is not censorship or a ban on free speech.
This is a questionable practice, it's doomed to fail because anonymity makes it unenforceable, it's counter productive, it's idiotic, but it is not a violation of freedom of speech.
Indeed. To anyone who is naive enough to wonder why privacy and anonymity matter on the net and elsewhere here it is. They give us a valuable tool to deal with what amount to guerilla attacks upon fundamental rights.
Defense in depth. Because sometimes you cannot count upon people to be honest.
Western society is decadent. We care about image to the exclusion of all else. This means, among other things, that you can get away with almost anything provided you have enough influence.
Just shoot everybody. Some of them are terrorists after all. Kill all of the and no more terrorism.
There is no such thing, unless you're going to allow no access at all to the data. The best you can hope for is to make it difficult enough that non-technical doctors won't know how or won't care to circumvent your road blocks.
That would be good enough. Most security breaches come from convenience. Things like Flash drives walking out the door and such. When we have a system that's as secure as a good filing cabinet we can call it secure. As it is now we might as well just put the files in a public library in some cases.
They're referring to the cost of the panels not the cost of the electricity generated by them.
Brilliant! I don't think I've ever seen this put so concisely and yet so accurately.
You know people already do these sorts of things right?
We already have what amounts to socialized medicine. It's too late to complain effectively about it now.
Would you care to estimate the percentage of end users who will copy&paste everything from this shiny new fully-encrypted fully-audited health records management system into their personal collection of word docs and excel sheets?
Probably about the same as those who do it now.
That is if the system is not done right. And yes it probably won't be. I've described secure systems to people before and it's rare to get past the "No removable drives or personal files allowed." part before they start campaigning to neuter it.
A real secure system would prevent this sort of thing but the odds that we'll ever actually develop the spine needed to implement such a system are close to zero.
If it is properly implemented it would be an improvement. Since it seems that we're going to get it anyway here's to hoping that it is done right.
it shouldn't, but it will. there will always be intolerant idiots, and what do you hope to prove by trying to get into a fight with them?
even if 99% of the people don't have a problem with it, 1 in 100 is still a lot of people online you're picking a fight with. why not just shut up about it, and not provoke those people?
and who is at fault? the ones causing all the trouble over it? or the one shoving it in their face while they'd rather just not know? imo both are just as wrong
Hm, you know I was defending Microsoft until I read this. They did say that this was about sexuality, not orientation, after all. Then again, why should I take part in a fight for a group of people who just shoved it in our faces?. I wouldn't want to provoke those intolerant of my ideas after all. It's not like I should be arrogant enough to force my pro-private property beliefs upon them let alone my personal conviction that they should enforce standards objectively
If I read it right that would net the same result. It wasn't the sexual orientation that did it it was the reference to sexuality period. Assuming they aren't just trying to cover their asses that is.
That would depend upon what is defined as 'advertise'. I've been accused of 'flaunting it' for not wearing the right fashions in some cases.
That said, in this case it does seem to be just whining