If someone wants to have sex with you and you aren't willing to give it, or the price is too high, what exactly is the alternative?
The decision not to rape comes from the desire not to hurt others or, as a fallback, the worry that you might get caught. That is all.
And maybe Slashdot is just full of virgins tonight, but who the hell thinks sex is sex unless your partner is actually fully involved? Because "sex" without a fully involved partner is masturbation
If you think everyone's sexual desires and experiences involve full active participation from the receiver, and aren't often about simple desire for a particular face/body/motion, you're an idiot and should probably stop posting about sex anywhere.
The thing I hate most about nerds is the "we must because we can" philosophy. Here's something else I can do: follow Jens Best around all day, and his mother, and his offspring, with a wide angle lens, an infrared camera, a highly sensitive microphone and a wardriving kit. Oh, I'm sorry, is your 7-year-old daughter pissing in her bathroom a private affair? Well, if she's going to radiate infrared onto the street I don't see why she has any more right to privacy than the wall in front of it, bouncing all that visible light.
And that saucy conversation you're having with your lover over VoIP, oh my! What's that? Well, next time you build your house, build it with perfect sound-proofing, peasant! See, if you speak to a public space - and you are doing so if you're speaking loudly enough for the sound waves to reach public space - then you have no expectation of privacy. You might as well point a megaphone at the street.
And, hey, should have picked a better WPA password! If you're going to pound my head with all those business contacts at 2.4GHz, you'd better expect me to record and publish them.
While we're at it, I hope you don't mind, but I have a rather nasty chronic and catchy cough. So all that sneezing I do within a few metres of you, and all that leaning I do on public property on the pavement outside your house - probably going to give you something. You see, it's legal, and I can physically do it, so I'm fairly sure it's a bold and honourable move to demonstrate my right to do so.
Finally, fuck the law. It doesn't matter that the EU has harmonised data protection laws relating to exporting of information which can be used to identify private persons. I don't like those laws, and I have the right to use private data about any individual in any way I like. I am irrelevant and conformist and it bothers me that no-one cares about anything I produce, but I don't have the strength to take it out on those who might actually be causing harm to me. So I'm going to take it out on the stranger on the street.
Support me, brothers, in my right to feel slightly better about my impotence by being an unproductive dick.
(But, goddammit, it's the State's duty to require ISPs to let angry geeks use their pipes the way they want without being monitored.)
Just pointing out how dickish you're being using something considered bad form by people who don't have personal reasons for feeling that way.
Is this a corrupt version of "remember lest we forget"? Make untouchable lest we learn? Wail when the topic is brought up lest it be used to aid in moral discussions rather than as a reason to go off on an emotional fit?
My point was that honesty is moral.
"Honesty" is, except when used in its most woolly "whatever I agree with" sense, a word to describe objectively how someone proceeds in a particular circumstance (truth vs misrepresentation, where silence is a grey area). It is neither inherently moral nor inherently immoral. It depends on the wider context. I thought you understood this from your previous post, but it appears you don't.
To say "honesty is moral" is as absurd as to say "the use of guns is immoral". You need to look at the context.
You're trying to absolve stealing, an act considered by every society I've ever heard of to be immoral
Nonsense. Even those insane Objectivists consider stealing a moral act in emergencies, e.g. finding some food in storage after a shipwreck, as long as you later pay back who you have stolen from. This whole thread is ample demonstration that few people consider stealing from an exploitative corporation which fucks you over to be immoral - it's just a way of reaching inches along the mile-long road to justice. And many societies would, rather than redefine "stealing", simply redefine "ownership" - and not regard the means of production as belonging to businessmen, but to the worker, or to the community, or to the nation.
You're trying to take theft and squeeze through as "not necessarily immoral"... because it... may not be properly considered to be described with the word "dishonest"?
The ellipses don't disguise your attempt to build a strawman.
Ignoring your heart attack because I've brought up something you consider sacred, I think you'll find we're actually agreeing with each other: honest does not necessarily imply moral, and moral does not necessarily imply honest.
In particular, it's not necessarily dishonest (in the sense of lying or somehow misrepresenting) to "steal" from your ex-employer, and it might be dishonest to declare that you're not housing any Jews but it isn't immoral. "[T]o be honest in my interactions regardless of the behavior of others," seems an inappropriate maxim; whether it is morally appropriate to be honest with others might very well depend on their behaviour.
In other words, "Yes, officer, there are Jews hiding in the basement."
Also, contrary to popular opinion, there's nothing inherently dishonest about taking something which "belongs to someone else", tedious capitalist philosophers and their attempt to turn economics into physics notwithstanding. You might start getting dishonest when you swindle stuff from the company by lying, or if you start preaching about how you've never taken anything from anyone without paying. But announcing, "I'd take office supplies from my company if I was fired" and actually doing so is honest.
Moreover, refusing to answer the question, "Did you steal stuff?" is not dishonest. Replying "no" to a question where lack of answer will be taken as a "yes" (i.e. no respect for silence) can be argued as not dishonest.
Those who argue with appeals to emotion use words like "honest" to mean "abides by the principles I preach". That's not a reasonable definition.
So this guy saunters into the ER at 3am with his finger bleeding. He is probably in pain and he can't do any work so he screams like he's just had a red hot poker up his anus. He sits there with his ghetto blaster in his lap, disturbing each hospital employee and demanding attention. The most junior of junior ER doctors looks at his finger and categorises him as low priority - you know, below the two guys on the stretchers who aren't complaining much at all.
Fortunately pclminion was there to put the junior doctor in his place. After all, the doc is SOOOO important that he's essentially doing medical tech support, triaging for the more senior doctors. pclminion informed the upstart to grow up and do his job, and the guy with the cut finger got seen within 5 minutes that day. Sure, a couple of people died, but at least the new MD didn't overstep his bounds by categorising problems in priority order.
The difference between any smart, charismatic man and a ruthless dictator (from workplace to global) is that only the latter has the confidence that he is more important than everyone else. Those around him are "just" grease for the machinery of his vision. You, Sir, are worse than Hitler. Not even Hitler would play jungle music at three in the morning.
You are making a calculation based on the average summary statistics quoted by manufacturers: maximum writes per hardware unit; hardware units written per OS write. In doing so, you're assuming a perfect wear levelling algorithm for any use case and no persistent metadata for that algorithm. (You're also assuming that the quoted limits for erases are close enough to correct.)
How about some citations for how unreliable SSD's are. Its really that simple. Got any? If not, why not?
I await published reports from people using the SSDs which have come out in the past 12-24 months years for, say, 3 years. I await publications of tests of these SSDs to destruction using various typical and atypical writes.
Degenerate as US capitalism has become, I don't have to prove that a technology doesn't work before salesmen need to stop telling me I'm an idiot for not dropping money on it.
Dell has been shipping SSD's for more than a few years (much smaller ones in fact), and plenty of servers have been using SSD's for more than a few years.
Then you'll please link to some real world reports of usage which describe how the volume is actually being accessed on a daily basis. I appreciate that they have been effective as embedded rust caches and for read-mostly databases, but that's not enough to go on.
I am confident that solid state storage will replace spinning rust eventually. It's been trying for decades, in an increasing number of cases jumping beyond technologist claims of the "near" future and in to specific reasonable real world choices. But it's not proven itself appropriate in nearly as many cases as its proponents would like to believe.
(It's like listening to people harp on about moving all apps to the Web and using the same specific cases with their crippled UIs and non-existent privacy, followed by an "in theory" we (i) can; (ii) actually need to solve all the remaining cases.)
Are there really people who believe that there is an inverse correlation between guilt and defence?
I think if someone accused me of something wild and outlandish which I didn't do, I might just shrug my shoulders, keep my mouth shut and put up no real defence. I wouldn't say I was guilty - but neither did Hurd - but I just don't care to defend myself. I'm past the insecure days of caring about my image or wanting to hang around in any environment where I have to endure petty shit.
At any moment in life any man is a determined arsehole with an ounce of cunning away from having his reputation corrupted. To win, you don't play. If you're as bright as Hurd, there's always somewhere else to go.
Except, again, you're just taking the manufacturer's summary performance data based on some unspecified average scenario and making a crude calculation. You're not taking account of paging vs block vs OS sector size, metadata location and updates (do SSDs use associative memory yet?), the nature of the wear levelling algorithm vs the nature of data written, behaviour as blocks gradually fail, etc.
Then you have to wade through marketing's insane claims about WA (a horrible euphemism in itself, conveniently widely adopted), e.g. Corsair declaring a value below 1.0 because of hardware compression.
That's SMART reporting 78% life left, which is just the manufacturer spouting the result of a formula to estimate remaining life based on number/nature of writes so far.
The trial comes after the real-world evidence. I'm not a guinea pig for the solid state storage industry.
HDDs are cheap to buy and considered sufficiently non-"hilariously unreliable" by their manufacturers that they come with reasonable warranty periods.
I don't see why I would rejoice at a 600GB SSD per se. It's not like a hard drive where it actually means "we've increased the density on 3.5 inch platters and/or squeezed more platters on top of each other". If you can make a 60GB SSD, you can make a 600GB SSD. What advance in tech is being brought to the table?
When I see real-world usage reports of SSDs under a range of regular HDD duty cycles, rather than hand-waving "well with the wear levelling algorithm you should get about xyz writes by which time you totally would have worn out your spinning rust" (oh, really?), I might consider applying them to servers which require frequent writes.
You're not actually going to solve anything, though, are you? The "asshole" will become the victim, and, depending on how the punched reacts, you're going to be the one inviting the arrest record and all which that implies. All because you've pathologically taken on a perceived emotion of the griever and translated it into anger.
Did that punch make the griever feel better? Did it fix the perpetrator's insensitive ways? Did it make you feel better for a split second, before you add up the consequences? You'll have done a lot more damage than a lame joke.
But if they walk up to someone who has just lost a child and tell it
Take a random day and a random adult at middle age or beyond. There is a strong chance that at least one person they know and care for is known ill and within the last few years of their life. It's not like "just losing a child", which refers to a recent and today much rarer event.
I expect someone to punch the asshole in the face.
And I'd expect the puncher to be dealt with in the same way as any puncher is dealt with when he isn't acting in self defence. "But I wasn't feeling myself and someone said something nasty," is not a get-out clause in society for being violent, even if others might sympathise for why you're not feeling yourself. If you are the sort of person to turn your grieving into anger, you need to sort yourself out before the next personal tragedy.
Someone in a bad personal situation has come asked for advice
This isn't a get-out clause. Should all submitters precede their posts with, "Dear/., I'm dying and...", just to elicit more considered responses? A reasonable man would treat all strangers with the same respect and patience, regardless of how much emotional baggage they've included in their initial greeting. So, argue for courtesy and being "conservative in what you send"[tm] if you want, but it's unreasonable to argue it on the basis of whether a man appears to expose some aspect of his life.
Why do some people find all war disgusting? Why do some people find pacifism disgusting? Why do some people find communism disgusting? Why do some people find capitalism disgusting? Why do some people find blacks disgusting? Why do some people find racism disgusting? Why do some people find dark humour disgusting? Why do some people find sympathy for strangers disgusting?
I'm not bothered by people being different. I'm only bothered when people will only question those who are different from themselves.
Personally, I don't care that much that the OP's wife is dying horribly of cancer. I am aware that there are millions of people dying horribly right now and I'd be a shaking wreck if I mourned as much for them all as each might deserve as an individual thinking, living human like me. This doesn't mean that I want his wife to horribly die or that I wouldn't support attempts to cure her disease. But I don't find anything sacred about the situation. I don't feel the need to extend my sympathies.
I'd rather focus my attention on solving the cause.
I went up and saw that only three keys had been depressed for the five beeps. After four tries
If only number of presses is relevant but order is irrelevant, that's as close to expected as you can get... but if order is relevant, that's very lucky.
And about (1), I don't think you are right. Speed is the rate that space varies with time.
That is correct, but you're misinterpreting the language in the phrase "rate of speed". It doesn't mean "the rate at which speed changes", rather "the rate, out of all possible rates, which is speed". IOW, the phrase does not refer to some derived quantity but to the nature of speed itself.
To give another example, I have the thought of victory in this Internet grammar nazi argument. This merely means I have the thought that I am victorious, rather than some derived quantity of victory which is the thought of it.
TBH, "rate" here is at best redundant and annoying. At worst someone will mentally add "change of... with time" and completely misinterpret. But it's not wrong.
Just because everyone says it wrong, it doesn't make it right.
To the layperson, since English is not prescriptive, word usage is by definition correct if everyone uses the word a particular way. This doesn't apply in a professional context, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Does prostitution exist?
Last night you raped me.
Judge yourself accordingly.
The threat of punishment does not deter most criminals, who believe they will not be caught, or who are committing a crime of passion.
But does it deter most would-be criminals? How do you identify a serious thought crime anyway?
when there are plenty of alternatives
If someone wants to have sex with you and you aren't willing to give it, or the price is too high, what exactly is the alternative?
The decision not to rape comes from the desire not to hurt others or, as a fallback, the worry that you might get caught. That is all.
And maybe Slashdot is just full of virgins tonight, but who the hell thinks sex is sex unless your partner is actually fully involved? Because "sex" without a fully involved partner is masturbation
If you think everyone's sexual desires and experiences involve full active participation from the receiver, and aren't often about simple desire for a particular face/body/motion, you're an idiot and should probably stop posting about sex anywhere.
And yet no force or fraud is being initiated. Laws against stalking (without menaces) are just a codification of consequences of the right to privacy.
The thing I hate most about nerds is the "we must because we can" philosophy. Here's something else I can do: follow Jens Best around all day, and his mother, and his offspring, with a wide angle lens, an infrared camera, a highly sensitive microphone and a wardriving kit. Oh, I'm sorry, is your 7-year-old daughter pissing in her bathroom a private affair? Well, if she's going to radiate infrared onto the street I don't see why she has any more right to privacy than the wall in front of it, bouncing all that visible light.
And that saucy conversation you're having with your lover over VoIP, oh my! What's that? Well, next time you build your house, build it with perfect sound-proofing, peasant! See, if you speak to a public space - and you are doing so if you're speaking loudly enough for the sound waves to reach public space - then you have no expectation of privacy. You might as well point a megaphone at the street.
And, hey, should have picked a better WPA password! If you're going to pound my head with all those business contacts at 2.4GHz, you'd better expect me to record and publish them.
While we're at it, I hope you don't mind, but I have a rather nasty chronic and catchy cough. So all that sneezing I do within a few metres of you, and all that leaning I do on public property on the pavement outside your house - probably going to give you something. You see, it's legal, and I can physically do it, so I'm fairly sure it's a bold and honourable move to demonstrate my right to do so.
Finally, fuck the law. It doesn't matter that the EU has harmonised data protection laws relating to exporting of information which can be used to identify private persons. I don't like those laws, and I have the right to use private data about any individual in any way I like. I am irrelevant and conformist and it bothers me that no-one cares about anything I produce, but I don't have the strength to take it out on those who might actually be causing harm to me. So I'm going to take it out on the stranger on the street.
Support me, brothers, in my right to feel slightly better about my impotence by being an unproductive dick.
(But, goddammit, it's the State's duty to require ISPs to let angry geeks use their pipes the way they want without being monitored.)
Just pointing out how dickish you're being using something considered bad form by people who don't have personal reasons for feeling that way.
Is this a corrupt version of "remember lest we forget"? Make untouchable lest we learn? Wail when the topic is brought up lest it be used to aid in moral discussions rather than as a reason to go off on an emotional fit?
My point was that honesty is moral.
"Honesty" is, except when used in its most woolly "whatever I agree with" sense, a word to describe objectively how someone proceeds in a particular circumstance (truth vs misrepresentation, where silence is a grey area). It is neither inherently moral nor inherently immoral. It depends on the wider context. I thought you understood this from your previous post, but it appears you don't.
To say "honesty is moral" is as absurd as to say "the use of guns is immoral". You need to look at the context.
You're trying to absolve stealing, an act considered by every society I've ever heard of to be immoral
Nonsense. Even those insane Objectivists consider stealing a moral act in emergencies, e.g. finding some food in storage after a shipwreck, as long as you later pay back who you have stolen from. This whole thread is ample demonstration that few people consider stealing from an exploitative corporation which fucks you over to be immoral - it's just a way of reaching inches along the mile-long road to justice. And many societies would, rather than redefine "stealing", simply redefine "ownership" - and not regard the means of production as belonging to businessmen, but to the worker, or to the community, or to the nation.
You're trying to take theft and squeeze through as "not necessarily immoral"... because it... may not be properly considered to be described with the word "dishonest"?
The ellipses don't disguise your attempt to build a strawman.
Ignoring your heart attack because I've brought up something you consider sacred, I think you'll find we're actually agreeing with each other: honest does not necessarily imply moral, and moral does not necessarily imply honest.
In particular, it's not necessarily dishonest (in the sense of lying or somehow misrepresenting) to "steal" from your ex-employer, and it might be dishonest to declare that you're not housing any Jews but it isn't immoral. "[T]o be honest in my interactions regardless of the behavior of others," seems an inappropriate maxim; whether it is morally appropriate to be honest with others might very well depend on their behaviour.
In other words, "Yes, officer, there are Jews hiding in the basement."
Also, contrary to popular opinion, there's nothing inherently dishonest about taking something which "belongs to someone else", tedious capitalist philosophers and their attempt to turn economics into physics notwithstanding. You might start getting dishonest when you swindle stuff from the company by lying, or if you start preaching about how you've never taken anything from anyone without paying. But announcing, "I'd take office supplies from my company if I was fired" and actually doing so is honest.
Moreover, refusing to answer the question, "Did you steal stuff?" is not dishonest. Replying "no" to a question where lack of answer will be taken as a "yes" (i.e. no respect for silence) can be argued as not dishonest.
Those who argue with appeals to emotion use words like "honest" to mean "abides by the principles I preach". That's not a reasonable definition.
So this guy saunters into the ER at 3am with his finger bleeding. He is probably in pain and he can't do any work so he screams like he's just had a red hot poker up his anus. He sits there with his ghetto blaster in his lap, disturbing each hospital employee and demanding attention. The most junior of junior ER doctors looks at his finger and categorises him as low priority - you know, below the two guys on the stretchers who aren't complaining much at all.
Fortunately pclminion was there to put the junior doctor in his place. After all, the doc is SOOOO important that he's essentially doing medical tech support, triaging for the more senior doctors. pclminion informed the upstart to grow up and do his job, and the guy with the cut finger got seen within 5 minutes that day. Sure, a couple of people died, but at least the new MD didn't overstep his bounds by categorising problems in priority order.
The difference between any smart, charismatic man and a ruthless dictator (from workplace to global) is that only the latter has the confidence that he is more important than everyone else. Those around him are "just" grease for the machinery of his vision. You, Sir, are worse than Hitler. Not even Hitler would play jungle music at three in the morning.
You are making a calculation based on the average summary statistics quoted by manufacturers: maximum writes per hardware unit; hardware units written per OS write. In doing so, you're assuming a perfect wear levelling algorithm for any use case and no persistent metadata for that algorithm. (You're also assuming that the quoted limits for erases are close enough to correct.)
How about some citations for how unreliable SSD's are. Its really that simple. Got any? If not, why not?
I await published reports from people using the SSDs which have come out in the past 12-24 months years for, say, 3 years. I await publications of tests of these SSDs to destruction using various typical and atypical writes.
Degenerate as US capitalism has become, I don't have to prove that a technology doesn't work before salesmen need to stop telling me I'm an idiot for not dropping money on it.
Dell has been shipping SSD's for more than a few years (much smaller ones in fact), and plenty of servers have been using SSD's for more than a few years.
Then you'll please link to some real world reports of usage which describe how the volume is actually being accessed on a daily basis. I appreciate that they have been effective as embedded rust caches and for read-mostly databases, but that's not enough to go on.
I am confident that solid state storage will replace spinning rust eventually. It's been trying for decades, in an increasing number of cases jumping beyond technologist claims of the "near" future and in to specific reasonable real world choices. But it's not proven itself appropriate in nearly as many cases as its proponents would like to believe.
(It's like listening to people harp on about moving all apps to the Web and using the same specific cases with their crippled UIs and non-existent privacy, followed by an "in theory" we (i) can; (ii) actually need to solve all the remaining cases.)
Are there really people who believe that there is an inverse correlation between guilt and defence?
I think if someone accused me of something wild and outlandish which I didn't do, I might just shrug my shoulders, keep my mouth shut and put up no real defence. I wouldn't say I was guilty - but neither did Hurd - but I just don't care to defend myself. I'm past the insecure days of caring about my image or wanting to hang around in any environment where I have to endure petty shit.
At any moment in life any man is a determined arsehole with an ounce of cunning away from having his reputation corrupted. To win, you don't play. If you're as bright as Hurd, there's always somewhere else to go.
Except, again, you're just taking the manufacturer's summary performance data based on some unspecified average scenario and making a crude calculation. You're not taking account of paging vs block vs OS sector size, metadata location and updates (do SSDs use associative memory yet?), the nature of the wear levelling algorithm vs the nature of data written, behaviour as blocks gradually fail, etc.
Then you have to wade through marketing's insane claims about WA (a horrible euphemism in itself, conveniently widely adopted), e.g. Corsair declaring a value below 1.0 because of hardware compression.
That's SMART reporting 78% life left, which is just the manufacturer spouting the result of a formula to estimate remaining life based on number/nature of writes so far.
The manufacturer data sheet is pretty much the polar opposite of "real-world usage reports... under a range of... duty cycles".
The trial comes after the real-world evidence. I'm not a guinea pig for the solid state storage industry.
HDDs are cheap to buy and considered sufficiently non-"hilariously unreliable" by their manufacturers that they come with reasonable warranty periods.
I don't see why I would rejoice at a 600GB SSD per se. It's not like a hard drive where it actually means "we've increased the density on 3.5 inch platters and/or squeezed more platters on top of each other". If you can make a 60GB SSD, you can make a 600GB SSD. What advance in tech is being brought to the table?
When I see real-world usage reports of SSDs under a range of regular HDD duty cycles, rather than hand-waving "well with the wear levelling algorithm you should get about xyz writes by which time you totally would have worn out your spinning rust" (oh, really?), I might consider applying them to servers which require frequent writes.
I don't know... are they responsible for themselves?
Oh, that's right, they never have to learn because you'll be there to fix the problem every time.
You're not actually going to solve anything, though, are you? The "asshole" will become the victim, and, depending on how the punched reacts, you're going to be the one inviting the arrest record and all which that implies. All because you've pathologically taken on a perceived emotion of the griever and translated it into anger.
Did that punch make the griever feel better? Did it fix the perpetrator's insensitive ways? Did it make you feel better for a split second, before you add up the consequences? You'll have done a lot more damage than a lame joke.
I don't know about you, but I have two ARM cross-compilers installed.
But if they walk up to someone who has just lost a child and tell it
Take a random day and a random adult at middle age or beyond. There is a strong chance that at least one person they know and care for is known ill and within the last few years of their life. It's not like "just losing a child", which refers to a recent and today much rarer event.
I expect someone to punch the asshole in the face.
And I'd expect the puncher to be dealt with in the same way as any puncher is dealt with when he isn't acting in self defence. "But I wasn't feeling myself and someone said something nasty," is not a get-out clause in society for being violent, even if others might sympathise for why you're not feeling yourself. If you are the sort of person to turn your grieving into anger, you need to sort yourself out before the next personal tragedy.
Someone in a bad personal situation has come asked for advice
This isn't a get-out clause. Should all submitters precede their posts with, "Dear /., I'm dying and...", just to elicit more considered responses? A reasonable man would treat all strangers with the same respect and patience, regardless of how much emotional baggage they've included in their initial greeting. So, argue for courtesy and being "conservative in what you send"[tm] if you want, but it's unreasonable to argue it on the basis of whether a man appears to expose some aspect of his life.
Why do some people find all war disgusting?
Why do some people find pacifism disgusting?
Why do some people find communism disgusting?
Why do some people find capitalism disgusting?
Why do some people find blacks disgusting?
Why do some people find racism disgusting?
Why do some people find dark humour disgusting?
Why do some people find sympathy for strangers disgusting?
I'm not bothered by people being different. I'm only bothered when people will only question those who are different from themselves.
Personally, I don't care that much that the OP's wife is dying horribly of cancer. I am aware that there are millions of people dying horribly right now and I'd be a shaking wreck if I mourned as much for them all as each might deserve as an individual thinking, living human like me. This doesn't mean that I want his wife to horribly die or that I wouldn't support attempts to cure her disease. But I don't find anything sacred about the situation. I don't feel the need to extend my sympathies.
I'd rather focus my attention on solving the cause.
I've used the Internet to put your account into some sort of context and I have no reason to doubt your integrity.
I went up and saw that only three keys had been depressed for the five beeps. After four tries
If only number of presses is relevant but order is irrelevant, that's as close to expected as you can get... but if order is relevant, that's very lucky.
And about (1), I don't think you are right. Speed is the rate that space varies with time.
That is correct, but you're misinterpreting the language in the phrase "rate of speed". It doesn't mean "the rate at which speed changes", rather "the rate, out of all possible rates, which is speed". IOW, the phrase does not refer to some derived quantity but to the nature of speed itself.
To give another example, I have the thought of victory in this Internet grammar nazi argument. This merely means I have the thought that I am victorious, rather than some derived quantity of victory which is the thought of it.
TBH, "rate" here is at best redundant and annoying. At worst someone will mentally add "change of... with time" and completely misinterpret. But it's not wrong.
Just because everyone says it wrong, it doesn't make it right.
To the layperson, since English is not prescriptive, word usage is by definition correct if everyone uses the word a particular way. This doesn't apply in a professional context, of course.