Setting aside the matter of productivity, this means that every activity of your students can be spied by multinationals for profit and by politicians for identity cultivation. Very disturbing. In my opinion the students should be protesting to get their privacy back. Not that they would be much better off with Windows, given that now Microsoft have turned into spyware pushers as well.
For the last 15 years, everyone and his dog, including Microsoft themselves, have been foreseeing the death of the desktop computer because of the hip media consumption device du jour. It's not going to happen anytime soon, because those things have a tendency to suck when one tries to get some work done with them.
Yes, because talking about "cultural marxism" in front of a slide with a silly alt-right cartoon is science and fact. He denounces "victimocracy" before declaring himself a martyr in the very next slide.
The prosecutors measured that he used 1,070 times the word "crap" on the LKML. However, they couldn't be bothered to filter away the occurrences of the word inside quoted replies:
We did not disambiguate profanity in quoted replies versus original utterances, but we did count profanities in Subject: headers.
so that number will include repetitions and other people's craps, and as such it does not accurately measure the magnitude of the defendant's crime. I believe that the inquisition should be repeated with more scrupulous zeal. And remember, even though he says that he's sorry, we're still talking about a male here, therefore he's not to be trusted: he could start again uttering mild profanities at any time.
Why should someone be offended today because of something that happened to his ancestors generations ago, an institution that has been abolished for one century and a half? The divisions of those times certainly shouldn't be forgotten, but should be overcome, and be relegated to history books, instead of being reignited at every occasion.
Why should someone be offended by a term that was, without an once of doubt, being used with no offensive intention? Labeling those terms as racist means, in its turn, to label everyone who used them as a racist. That's a lot of people, most of them good persons, who will possibly feel resentment, for being slapped with the unjust attachment of an odious guilt.
We'll have a hard time fighting ignorance and populism if the image of us that is perceived by the people whom we're trying to convince is that of someone who can never be made happy, no matter what. And I'm afraid that this path leads us to get Trumps, Orbáns, Salvinis and company not for 5 more years, but for 20. Sorry for the rant.
It's what was approved and written in the Constitution that counts. Letters, opinions, statements are not a source of law, no matter how prestigious the author is.
A person does not dissipate 1000 W of energy. Speaking of "W per hour" of heat has no sense, watts are already "energy over time". European population is decreasing.
The politicians that stand for election are themselves not representative of voters or the wishes of voters; European voters, like US voters, pick the least bad choices among a whole range of bad and unrepresentative choices.
No, it is very easy to run as a politician in Europe, and politicians are as bad as the people who vote for them. We've seen porn stars get elected as senators. Just tell people something attractive to them and people will vote for you.
It's absurd for you to imply that Hitler came to power because Germany didn't restrict free speech enough; Germany had strict restrictions on free speech in the Weimar Republic. Hitler came to power because German elites had run the country into the ground in the preceding decades and because the mainstream parties installed him as dictator with the enabling act. And Hitler's genocidal racism wasn't the result of "gullible normal people" and their hate speech, it was based on scientific racism and eugenics developed by American and German scientific elites.
Between the wars, people couldn't read or write in Europe. They couldn't care less about American eugenics, because they wouldn't have a way to know about it. What happened is much more simple: there was poverty, and there was resentment. Sleazy politicians started telling people what they wanted to hear: all politicians except me are corrupt, we need to find a more modern system than democracy, I'm going to send all parasites back home, our country is better than the others and we deserve more than what we got in the last war, it's not your fault if you are doing bad but rather it's a conspiracy from Jews and England, we will make our empire great again, we will keep you safe from those pesky intellectual socialists who eat children and want to subvert your traditional way of life. And they got the support of the elites, too: from the intellectuals because modernity (see Nietzsche, futurism, modernism etc.) and from the rich because of the red scare. In fact, reaction against Socialism was key for the fascist ascent to power.
And the same toxic stew of government incompetence, illiberalism, and bad science is again brewing in Europe today: Europeans have learned nothing from the horrors they let loose on the world in the 20th century.
After being destroyed by fascisms, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in its history because of commerce, collaboration, policies of social welfare, and rejection of nationalism. The institutions that, with all their defects, allowed for this, are now under attack by enemies of a strong, peaceful, wealthy Europe: internally, ignorant politicians who couldn't find a better livelihood than being the priests of hate and fear (they hate science and scientists with a passion, see their positions about vaccines, gmos and chemtrails); externally, Putin who, for reasons that I leave to the reader to judge, has started massive support for the above mentioned politicians, both financial and in propaganda, and its newfound American ally, who is using the leverage of the most powerful country on the planet in the same directon.
When you're conflating the Ukraine and Iceland with Portugal and Malta under a single term, as you keep doing when you talk generically about "Europe", statements lose meaning. If we're talking about mature democracies, as I suppose you're doing, then European governments are elected, typically every five years, and therefore they are fully representative of the people who voted for them. Many extremists generically claim that somehow governments escape elections and get to be tyrants against their own people, and it's something that they make up because they call for extreme measures (such as discriminating people by religion) and therefore they need extreme pretexts. In the same countries, there is currently freedom of speech, therefore should somebody find himself unjustly silenced as you say, he can find a judge who will give him back his right to speak and a reimbursement. In particular, one is absolutely free to voice his distrust of strangers, and that's how far-right governments have been elected in Eastern Europe and part of Southern Europe. No communist conspiracy succeded in stopping them. Of course one can't say (yet) things like "kill all muslims" because, unlike America, Europe has been under fascism, has been destroyed by it, and there it is known that fascists aren't green aliens coming from Mars, but simply ignorant or gullible normal people whose minds have been poisoned by hate speech: they've come once, and they could come back again at any time, and in that case there would no longer be any freedom, of speech or otherwise.
People in "Europe" have no problems spewing fascist and racist propaganda over Facebook with their real names, surnames and profile pictures visible to everyone: they would give zero shits about being given an "internet license plate" wrt government criticism. Moreover, their governments actually have no need or desire to censor them, because more and more often they are of the same political spectrum as them (elections take place).
Considering that Antifa are neo-maoists, and Mao was just as covered in blood as ever the Nazis were
False equivalence, Mao never promoted killing people for ideological reasons and the deaths that happened during his regime were due to failed policy. In fact, those policies were reversed after his mandate and on account of those failures he was removed from power by its party itself. No comparison can be made to Hitler, who attacked other nations for power and dictated genocide on a delirant ideological basis.
(as was Stalin, another left winger frequently left out of the discussions), then the equivalence stands.
The figure of Stalin has historically been deprecated as that of a blood-thirsty dictator. You will find no left-winger praising Stalin after the 1950s, especially since many of his victims were left-wingers too. You probably have heard of a process called "de-stalinization" which was put forward by none other than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which denounced Stalin's "cult of personality". On the other hand, you will find no Nazi criticizing or questioning in any way the figure of Hitler. By the way, you will find Stalin supporters among Russian nationalists today, which tend to be right-wingers, and outside of Russia among the audience of Russian propaganda channels, which for some reason have a particularly strong following in the alt-right.
Turning round and saying it's a false equivalence doesn't make it so, just because one side has a hip new fangled cool sounding name.
If I formed a group called the "Pink Unicorn Fluffy Love Team", then proceeded to harass and intimidate everyone that disagreed with my cool and hip political agenda, it still wouldn't make the group cool. Even though I'd managed to brand myself that way in public.
It's like the group "Hope not Hate". I once wandered into their 'area' of the net in the mistaken idea that they were promoting hope. Nope. Discussions were on how to attack, intimidate, dox, incite and skew media (with delvings into how to destroy people's lives and paint them with political mud).
No one is saying that excesses are a good thing. What I am saying is that you can't compare people fighting for a good cause (social justice is a good cause, isn't it?), no matter how obnoxious, deranged or unrelatable they are, with people who fight for evil (murdering people on a racial basis is bad, isn't it?), no matter how cool they might seem, because doing so you will support the cause of the latter.
You were triggered by visiting a particular forum of specially nasty left-wing activists (I assume this from what you have told me, I don't know them at all). Have you ever visited a Nazi forum? ANY one at your choice? Not only you wil find the same level of hate and more, you will also see that they are promoting an ideology that wouldn't allow us to have this discussion on this forum, that wouldn't allow politically incorrect people to work at all, and that welcomes violence (murder, not window-smashing) as a core part of its belief system.
The Antifa and allied groups are bad. Having the "out" group being called bad, and the "in" group being called "rebels with a cause" is excuses, because they're "your kind of bad, which must be ok, because it makes me feel good".
I dislike them both, and happily debunk their ideological poison where I can (and feel safe to).
Nazism isn't deprecated because it's "out". Nazism is deprecated because it is an absolute evil. Popularity has nothing to do with morality. And by the way, I can assure you that in Europe racism and extreme right-wing positions (NOT Nazism) are fashionable and on the rise. I've heard many people siding with them because they're convinced of being solitary heroes against the SJW culture; on the contrary, they're conveniently going with the mob.
But let's be careful when we compare the Nazi to other groups, because the false equivalence "they're all just as bad" leads to "no one is really bad", and benefits the worst, in particular the Nazis. In fact, it's now part of their standard playbook: "if we can have a Communist party, then why can't we have a Nazi party as well?"
This information you're adding is important. After posting, I also found out that she was not a longtime employee; the other guy that was fired, Fries, was. However, I'm still not completely convinced. What about Fries? I couldn't find offensive messages coming from him. Also, the exhibition of the firings by the boss, is the same liturgy that we saw enacted by Google's execs after the Damore affaire. It doesn't belong in a civil environment, it's another bucketload of polarization tossed into an already exasperated social context.
No, what they do is concealing themselves as little as they can without getting called out, then they pop out in the open at the first chance they get, when they feel that they're considered socially acceptable.
Clearly she has been acting like an assholess, but one shouldn't be fired for a tweet after she's been working at a company for 12 years. Of course her behaviour should have consequences; she should have been called, reproached, perhaps sanctioned, and allowed to apologize. Firing should always be left as a last resort.
Honestly, a company which fires faithful, long-time employees and then puts their severed heads on display on a game forum for the mob to behold is worthless, from a moral standpoint even before the professional one. No one worth his salt should be working at such a toxic place.
They were very noisy, they had an ugly design, and they were prone to break. Key caps would come out easily and seemed to be printed cheaply. Back then we did not perceive those keyboards to be a premium product, rather the opposite.
Now this is a reason for bothering courts, unleashing lawyers and inquisite online activities: finding out who dared to desecrate a few unfinished seconds of a silly show.
It won't happen. Look at how the web works today, and try to foresee how it will work in the near future when all its constituent parts (from HTTP to HTML) go binary.
WebAssembly will make this kind of problems even worse, because the included third-party binary blobs will be even harder to audit, easier to exploit and more difficult to flag.
On the other hand, it will put the power of censorship in the hands of domain name registrars, TLS certificate providers, and whomever has the power to decide which certificates are "not trusted" (Google).
Slashdot Mirror
Setting aside the matter of productivity, this means that every activity of your students can be spied by multinationals for profit and by politicians for identity cultivation. Very disturbing. In my opinion the students should be protesting to get their privacy back. Not that they would be much better off with Windows, given that now Microsoft have turned into spyware pushers as well.
For the last 15 years, everyone and his dog, including Microsoft themselves, have been foreseeing the death of the desktop computer because of the hip media consumption device du jour. It's not going to happen anytime soon, because those things have a tendency to suck when one tries to get some work done with them.
Yes, because talking about "cultural marxism" in front of a slide with a silly alt-right cartoon is science and fact. He denounces "victimocracy" before declaring himself a martyr in the very next slide.
If you evade billions worth of taxes, you're thugs.
so that number will include repetitions and other people's craps, and as such it does not accurately measure the magnitude of the defendant's crime. I believe that the inquisition should be repeated with more scrupulous zeal.
And remember, even though he says that he's sorry, we're still talking about a male here, therefore he's not to be trusted: he could start again uttering mild profanities at any time.
Why should someone be offended today because of something that happened to his ancestors generations ago, an institution that has been abolished for one century and a half? The divisions of those times certainly shouldn't be forgotten, but should be overcome, and be relegated to history books, instead of being reignited at every occasion.
Why should someone be offended by a term that was, without an once of doubt, being used with no offensive intention? Labeling those terms as racist means, in its turn, to label everyone who used them as a racist. That's a lot of people, most of them good persons, who will possibly feel resentment, for being slapped with the unjust attachment of an odious guilt.
We'll have a hard time fighting ignorance and populism if the image of us that is perceived by the people whom we're trying to convince is that of someone who can never be made happy, no matter what. And I'm afraid that this path leads us to get Trumps, Orbáns, Salvinis and company not for 5 more years, but for 20. Sorry for the rant.
It's what was approved and written in the Constitution that counts. Letters, opinions, statements are not a source of law, no matter how prestigious the author is.
We know prohibition works so well to fix people's addictions... let's do it again for alcohol, too.
I know, I know.
The watt is defined as J / s, which is energy / time. In fact, as you say yourself, to obtain an amount of energy you have to multiply by time.
A person does not dissipate 1000 W of energy. Speaking of "W per hour" of heat has no sense, watts are already "energy over time". European population is decreasing.
No, it is very easy to run as a politician in Europe, and politicians are as bad as the people who vote for them. We've seen porn stars get elected as senators. Just tell people something attractive to them and people will vote for you.
Between the wars, people couldn't read or write in Europe. They couldn't care less about American eugenics, because they wouldn't have a way to know about it. What happened is much more simple: there was poverty, and there was resentment. Sleazy politicians started telling people what they wanted to hear: all politicians except me are corrupt, we need to find a more modern system than democracy, I'm going to send all parasites back home, our country is better than the others and we deserve more than what we got in the last war, it's not your fault if you are doing bad but rather it's a conspiracy from Jews and England, we will make our empire great again, we will keep you safe from those pesky intellectual socialists who eat children and want to subvert your traditional way of life.
And they got the support of the elites, too: from the intellectuals because modernity (see Nietzsche, futurism, modernism etc.) and from the rich because of the red scare. In fact, reaction against Socialism was key for the fascist ascent to power.
After being destroyed by fascisms, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in its history because of commerce, collaboration, policies of social welfare, and rejection of nationalism. The institutions that, with all their defects, allowed for this, are now under attack by enemies of a strong, peaceful, wealthy Europe: internally, ignorant politicians who couldn't find a better livelihood than being the priests of hate and fear (they hate science and scientists with a passion, see their positions about vaccines, gmos and chemtrails); externally, Putin who, for reasons that I leave to the reader to judge, has started massive support for the above mentioned politicians, both financial and in propaganda, and its newfound American ally, who is using the leverage of the most powerful country on the planet in the same directon.
When you're conflating the Ukraine and Iceland with Portugal and Malta under a single term, as you keep doing when you talk generically about "Europe", statements lose meaning. If we're talking about mature democracies, as I suppose you're doing, then European governments are elected, typically every five years, and therefore they are fully representative of the people who voted for them. Many extremists generically claim that somehow governments escape elections and get to be tyrants against their own people, and it's something that they make up because they call for extreme measures (such as discriminating people by religion) and therefore they need extreme pretexts. In the same countries, there is currently freedom of speech, therefore should somebody find himself unjustly silenced as you say, he can find a judge who will give him back his right to speak and a reimbursement. In particular, one is absolutely free to voice his distrust of strangers, and that's how far-right governments have been elected in Eastern Europe and part of Southern Europe. No communist conspiracy succeded in stopping them. Of course one can't say (yet) things like "kill all muslims" because, unlike America, Europe has been under fascism, has been destroyed by it, and there it is known that fascists aren't green aliens coming from Mars, but simply ignorant or gullible normal people whose minds have been poisoned by hate speech: they've come once, and they could come back again at any time, and in that case there would no longer be any freedom, of speech or otherwise.
People in "Europe" have no problems spewing fascist and racist propaganda over Facebook with their real names, surnames and profile pictures visible to everyone: they would give zero shits about being given an "internet license plate" wrt government criticism. Moreover, their governments actually have no need or desire to censor them, because more and more often they are of the same political spectrum as them (elections take place).
Considering that Antifa are neo-maoists, and Mao was just as covered in blood as ever the Nazis were
False equivalence, Mao never promoted killing people for ideological reasons and the deaths that happened during his regime were due to failed policy. In fact, those policies were reversed after his mandate and on account of those failures he was removed from power by its party itself. No comparison can be made to Hitler, who attacked other nations for power and dictated genocide on a delirant ideological basis.
The figure of Stalin has historically been deprecated as that of a blood-thirsty dictator. You will find no left-winger praising Stalin after the 1950s, especially since many of his victims were left-wingers too. You probably have heard of a process called "de-stalinization" which was put forward by none other than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which denounced Stalin's "cult of personality". On the other hand, you will find no Nazi criticizing or questioning in any way the figure of Hitler. By the way, you will find Stalin supporters among Russian nationalists today, which tend to be right-wingers, and outside of Russia among the audience of Russian propaganda channels, which for some reason have a particularly strong following in the alt-right.
No one is saying that excesses are a good thing. What I am saying is that you can't compare people fighting for a good cause (social justice is a good cause, isn't it?), no matter how obnoxious, deranged or unrelatable they are, with people who fight for evil (murdering people on a racial basis is bad, isn't it?), no matter how cool they might seem, because doing so you will support the cause of the latter.
You were triggered by visiting a particular forum of specially nasty left-wing activists (I assume this from what you have told me, I don't know them at all). Have you ever visited a Nazi forum? ANY one at your choice? Not only you wil find the same level of hate and more, you will also see that they are promoting an ideology that wouldn't allow us to have this discussion on this forum, that wouldn't allow politically incorrect people to work at all, and that welcomes violence (murder, not window-smashing) as a core part of its belief system.
Nazism isn't deprecated because it's "out". Nazism is deprecated because it is an absolute evil. Popularity has nothing to do with morality. And by the way, I can assure you that in Europe racism and extreme right-wing positions (NOT Nazism) are fashionable and on the rise. I've heard many people siding with them because they're convinced of being solitary heroes against the SJW culture; on the contrary, they're conveniently going with the mob.
But let's be careful when we compare the Nazi to other groups, because the false equivalence "they're all just as bad" leads to "no one is really bad", and benefits the worst, in particular the Nazis. In fact, it's now part of their standard playbook: "if we can have a Communist party, then why can't we have a Nazi party as well?"
This information you're adding is important. After posting, I also found out that she was not a longtime employee; the other guy that was fired, Fries, was. However, I'm still not completely convinced. What about Fries? I couldn't find offensive messages coming from him. Also, the exhibition of the firings by the boss, is the same liturgy that we saw enacted by Google's execs after the Damore affaire. It doesn't belong in a civil environment, it's another bucketload of polarization tossed into an already exasperated social context.
No, what they do is concealing themselves as little as they can without getting called out, then they pop out in the open at the first chance they get, when they feel that they're considered socially acceptable.
Honestly, a company which fires faithful, long-time employees and then puts their severed heads on display on a game forum for the mob to behold is worthless, from a moral standpoint even before the professional one. No one worth his salt should be working at such a toxic place.
Context matters: Nazis are murderers. You don't want to work with people who would murder you if you were Jew, gay, communist, gypsy, etc.
They were very noisy, they had an ugly design, and they were prone to break. Key caps would come out easily and seemed to be printed cheaply. Back then we did not perceive those keyboards to be a premium product, rather the opposite.
Now this is a reason for bothering courts, unleashing lawyers and inquisite online activities: finding out who dared to desecrate a few unfinished seconds of a silly show.
It won't happen. Look at how the web works today, and try to foresee how it will work in the near future when all its constituent parts (from HTTP to HTML) go binary.
WebAssembly will make this kind of problems even worse, because the included third-party binary blobs will be even harder to audit, easier to exploit and more difficult to flag.
On the other hand, it will put the power of censorship in the hands of domain name registrars, TLS certificate providers, and whomever has the power to decide which certificates are "not trusted" (Google).