You expressed with considerably more grace and dignity (not to mention far less profanity) than what I could muster exactly the point that I was trying to say.
Aspergers is under the autism label because a person with Aspergers is actually autistic. There are numerous things under ASD which are not autism, of course... but Aspergers is not one of them. Aspergers is realy just a high-functioning autism.
...the healthy among us tend to see the difficulties they face as being primarily issues of how our society is structured instead of an underlying inferiority.
When did I suggest that it wasn't a good idea to have autism diagnosed? I most sincerely endorse diagnosis of it at the earliest possible opportunity, because knowing that much can change the entire world. I lived with undiagnosed autism for 30 years, and I can only guess at just how different my life could have been if it had been diagnosed when I was a child. According to nearly every adult that ever spoke with me, I was supposedly far above average in intelligence, but I dealt with no small amount of ostracization when I was a kid, which started with being called "stupid", and only got worse as I got older. To be perfectly honest, there were a lot of times while I was growing up, that I really wished I were more "normal"... but as an adult now, looking back on who I've become today, through it all... I wonder if I really had always just been like everybody else, if I would have been just as uncompassionate towards people who might be different from me as those who ridiculed me when I was growing up? If I had known when I was a child, at least I would have had an unshakable reason to understand why I was being seen as different.
Regardless.... autism is part of what makes me the person I am today.... and I honestly don't think that there's any part of it that really ever needed to be "cured", nor do I think we should be looking for one for others.
.... autism represents something that is somehow "wrong"?
Okay, it's not neurotypical... but so fucking what?
Can people just not fucking embrace the fact that every individual is unique and special, and stop trying to hunt for ways make every child born today into a carbon-copy of some theoretical "normal", when in actuality, that doesn't even exist in the first place?
There's no law prohibiting such discrimination, however. It might be perceived as unfair, at best.... unethical, even, at worst... but definitely not illegal.
Unfortunately yes... or else remove all of their physical presence from that country.
Asking Google to pull entirely out of Canada, however, would be economically damaging to both parties (and it's escalated nowhere near that far yet). The question to ask here is do the courts actually care?
I think that a ruling of this nature shows that the court probably did not actually consider that Google could or might pull entirely out of Canada as a result of this (which would be somewhat economically harmful to Google as well, by the way, so there's definitely some disincentive for Google to go through with that), and even if they did, that they both a) doubt that Google would actually do it; and b) actually do not really care about (or possible even realize) the consequences of such an outcome.
Even though the websites that are supposed to be blocked are genuinely criminal (resorting to highly unethical behavior for commercial gain), and that I sincerely hope will get rounded up sooner rather than later, and who are apparently operating physically outside of Canada's jurisdiction (their Canadian physical presence was shut down a couple of years ago), the worst case scenario I can see from this is that Google pulls out of Canada, and Canada is stuck with implementing its own firewall similar to China's to filter all of google's results.
Care to take a guess at what a pain the ass that might be? Also, one could probably kiss their career goodbye unless one already has plenty of connections in the destination country relevant to their field.
What any reasonable person could know is entirely irrelevant because it is most definitely *not* reasonable for them to be using Ikea trademarks without permission (the logo, in particular). If anything, they should have a disclaimer.
You can still get around the address space limitations of ipv6 with NAT... but unlike IPv4, with IPv6 it is possible to design a NAT system that you can route packets through via extension headers, so even on the other side of a ipv6 NAT (which acts technically more like an extra 128 bit prefix on the ip address than it does a conventional NAT, but it still essentially functions the same way in that it would still change ip address headers like current ipv4 nats do), a computer could still potentially directly connect to yours.
Of course, some people might scream about security issues if this is done, but bear in mind that NAT isn't really something that one should be using for security anyways.
The goal is not to try and make a computer program that can't be distinguished from a human that may be acting somewhat like a computer, the goal is to make a computer program that can't be distinguished from a human, period.
But if the very thing that makes something a commercial activity is basically if you are receiving money for it, where is the real difference, exactly?
That, and it wasn't even that hard to spot as an AI. I recall having a go at the chatbot in question back in 2012, and found it as crtically flawed after asking it just two questions. First, I asked how old he was, and he responded with a believable answer of 13, which corresponded with information that I already had, but then I asked when his birthday was and he responded with, if I remember correctly, a date in January of 1988, which would have made him 11 years older than what he was otherwise claiming. The straightforwardness of the questions and their answers left no doubt in my mind that the discrepancy was not merely on account of any so-called lack of fluency in English (which was, by the way, the excuse that it would appear to fall back upon when it was not able to from a coherent response), and the bot was exposed. A non-native speaker who genuinely did not understand a question in the language it was posed in would, in fact, just say that they did not understand the question, rather than give a coherent answer that blatantly contradicts a previous coherent answer they had already given to a differently worded but highly related question.
The notion that at least 30% of the researchers would not even think to ask an alleged child when their birthday was is laughable.
I live in a country which does *NOT* have at-will employment, and I'd like to address a myth which you've touched on.
....and it's nigh impossible to fire people.
First of all, the purpose of laws which don't allow employers to fire "at-will" is not to give people any kind of entitlement to work... it is to limit how much the employment insurance system needs to be responsible for ex-employees.
Secondly, where I live, it is just as easy as it is in places with at-will employment to discharge absolutely any employee within their initial probation period... the employer has no responsibility to compensate the employee for termination within such a period.
After the probation period, it is a little more involved, but not too bad. There's just this thing called "notice" that an employer needs to offer, and the amount of notice that is required is defined by how many years the employee has been with a company (after probation ends, the period is 1 week up until the end of the 1st year, and after that 2 weeks until the end of the third year, and after that, one week for each full year to a maximum of 8 weeks). If an employer does not want to give notice, they are obligated to pay out an equivalent amount in salary or wage to the employee. An employer is free to mix/match any combination of notice/pay-in-lieu-of-notice that they are comfortable with. If an employee is fired for reasons that amount to ethical misconduct, no notice or pay-in-lieu-of-notice is required (also, the employee is ineligible for employment assistance). The employer must be prepared to testify to this fact if the employee tries to collect EI and they are contacted about it.
Also, an employee can, at *ANY* time, leave a company... for absolutely any reason, and with no obligation required on their part beyond anything that they might have previously explicitly agreed to with the employer. Notice is generally considered polite, however, and an employee who does not give suitable notice to the employer is generally setting himself up for getting a bad reference for future jobs. An employer does not have to compensate an employee in such a case for anything other than unpaid time worked, and the employee may *not* apply for employment insurance.
Finally, disputes between employee and employer claims for purposes of employment insurance are handled by another process that I've never had to deal with personally, but generally amounts to something along the lines of a miniature trial where both parties state their cases and provide whatever evidence they have of their testimony.
So.... firing a person because you don't like the way they look, or because they have a bad attitude is entirely allowed... but in absence of notice, you will need to compensate the person based on how long they've worked there.
having witnessed this exact scenario happen in my own family, yes.
The medication stops the weight gain... but does absolutely nothing to help bring any weight already back under control as a fully functioning metabolism would.
You weren't sacked because you were too fat.... you were given the reason for dismissal: shortage of work. Now you want to invent an excuse that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything? If you were my employee, I'd sack you for being an asshat with an overinflated sense of entitlement.
Frankly, I have a far bigger problem with this guy's attitude than I do with them considering obesity a disability... not that I think that is a good idea either.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it okay to teach that it's *NOT* scientifically valid?
Because that's still teaching it.... it's just admitting up front that it depends upon a scientifically untestable premise.
You expressed with considerably more grace and dignity (not to mention far less profanity) than what I could muster exactly the point that I was trying to say.
Thank you.
Aspergers is under the autism label because a person with Aspergers is actually autistic. There are numerous things under ASD which are not autism, of course... but Aspergers is not one of them. Aspergers is realy just a high-functioning autism.
QFT
What if an independent musician has their own website with their music videos? Will google deindex them from search results?
When did I suggest that it wasn't a good idea to have autism diagnosed? I most sincerely endorse diagnosis of it at the earliest possible opportunity, because knowing that much can change the entire world. I lived with undiagnosed autism for 30 years, and I can only guess at just how different my life could have been if it had been diagnosed when I was a child. According to nearly every adult that ever spoke with me, I was supposedly far above average in intelligence, but I dealt with no small amount of ostracization when I was a kid, which started with being called "stupid", and only got worse as I got older. To be perfectly honest, there were a lot of times while I was growing up, that I really wished I were more "normal"... but as an adult now, looking back on who I've become today, through it all... I wonder if I really had always just been like everybody else, if I would have been just as uncompassionate towards people who might be different from me as those who ridiculed me when I was growing up? If I had known when I was a child, at least I would have had an unshakable reason to understand why I was being seen as different.
Regardless.... autism is part of what makes me the person I am today.... and I honestly don't think that there's any part of it that really ever needed to be "cured", nor do I think we should be looking for one for others.
Where does anyone else get off saying that there must be something "wrong" with me because I have autism?
You suggest that I shouldn't be making the decision for others... indeed, but bear in mind... neither should anyone else.
Okay, it's not neurotypical... but so fucking what?
Can people just not fucking embrace the fact that every individual is unique and special, and stop trying to hunt for ways make every child born today into a carbon-copy of some theoretical "normal", when in actuality, that doesn't even exist in the first place?
Technically speaking.... french fries are vegetable. They are made from potatoes, after all.
If a person records themselves singing or playing a song that they made, are they disallowed from putting that video on youtube now?
There's no law prohibiting such discrimination, however. It might be perceived as unfair, at best.... unethical, even, at worst... but definitely not illegal.
Said licensee can still be denied the right to do business in Canada, however.
Unfortunately yes... or else remove all of their physical presence from that country.
Asking Google to pull entirely out of Canada, however, would be economically damaging to both parties (and it's escalated nowhere near that far yet). The question to ask here is do the courts actually care?
I think that a ruling of this nature shows that the court probably did not actually consider that Google could or might pull entirely out of Canada as a result of this (which would be somewhat economically harmful to Google as well, by the way, so there's definitely some disincentive for Google to go through with that), and even if they did, that they both a) doubt that Google would actually do it; and b) actually do not really care about (or possible even realize) the consequences of such an outcome.
Even though the websites that are supposed to be blocked are genuinely criminal (resorting to highly unethical behavior for commercial gain), and that I sincerely hope will get rounded up sooner rather than later, and who are apparently operating physically outside of Canada's jurisdiction (their Canadian physical presence was shut down a couple of years ago), the worst case scenario I can see from this is that Google pulls out of Canada, and Canada is stuck with implementing its own firewall similar to China's to filter all of google's results.
So what do you suggest that Canadians do? Move?
Care to take a guess at what a pain the ass that might be? Also, one could probably kiss their career goodbye unless one already has plenty of connections in the destination country relevant to their field.
Because one can, within Canada, quite easily access google.com?
What any reasonable person could know is entirely irrelevant because it is most definitely *not* reasonable for them to be using Ikea trademarks without permission (the logo, in particular). If anything, they should have a disclaimer.
You can still get around the address space limitations of ipv6 with NAT... but unlike IPv4, with IPv6 it is possible to design a NAT system that you can route packets through via extension headers, so even on the other side of a ipv6 NAT (which acts technically more like an extra 128 bit prefix on the ip address than it does a conventional NAT, but it still essentially functions the same way in that it would still change ip address headers like current ipv4 nats do), a computer could still potentially directly connect to yours.
Of course, some people might scream about security issues if this is done, but bear in mind that NAT isn't really something that one should be using for security anyways.
The goal is not to try and make a computer program that can't be distinguished from a human that may be acting somewhat like a computer, the goal is to make a computer program that can't be distinguished from a human, period.
But if the very thing that makes something a commercial activity is basically if you are receiving money for it, where is the real difference, exactly?
That, and it wasn't even that hard to spot as an AI. I recall having a go at the chatbot in question back in 2012, and found it as crtically flawed after asking it just two questions. First, I asked how old he was, and he responded with a believable answer of 13, which corresponded with information that I already had, but then I asked when his birthday was and he responded with, if I remember correctly, a date in January of 1988, which would have made him 11 years older than what he was otherwise claiming. The straightforwardness of the questions and their answers left no doubt in my mind that the discrepancy was not merely on account of any so-called lack of fluency in English (which was, by the way, the excuse that it would appear to fall back upon when it was not able to from a coherent response), and the bot was exposed. A non-native speaker who genuinely did not understand a question in the language it was posed in would, in fact, just say that they did not understand the question, rather than give a coherent answer that blatantly contradicts a previous coherent answer they had already given to a differently worded but highly related question.
The notion that at least 30% of the researchers would not even think to ask an alleged child when their birthday was is laughable.
First of all, the purpose of laws which don't allow employers to fire "at-will" is not to give people any kind of entitlement to work... it is to limit how much the employment insurance system needs to be responsible for ex-employees.
Secondly, where I live, it is just as easy as it is in places with at-will employment to discharge absolutely any employee within their initial probation period... the employer has no responsibility to compensate the employee for termination within such a period.
After the probation period, it is a little more involved, but not too bad. There's just this thing called "notice" that an employer needs to offer, and the amount of notice that is required is defined by how many years the employee has been with a company (after probation ends, the period is 1 week up until the end of the 1st year, and after that 2 weeks until the end of the third year, and after that, one week for each full year to a maximum of 8 weeks). If an employer does not want to give notice, they are obligated to pay out an equivalent amount in salary or wage to the employee. An employer is free to mix/match any combination of notice/pay-in-lieu-of-notice that they are comfortable with. If an employee is fired for reasons that amount to ethical misconduct, no notice or pay-in-lieu-of-notice is required (also, the employee is ineligible for employment assistance). The employer must be prepared to testify to this fact if the employee tries to collect EI and they are contacted about it.
Also, an employee can, at *ANY* time, leave a company... for absolutely any reason, and with no obligation required on their part beyond anything that they might have previously explicitly agreed to with the employer. Notice is generally considered polite, however, and an employee who does not give suitable notice to the employer is generally setting himself up for getting a bad reference for future jobs. An employer does not have to compensate an employee in such a case for anything other than unpaid time worked, and the employee may *not* apply for employment insurance.
Finally, disputes between employee and employer claims for purposes of employment insurance are handled by another process that I've never had to deal with personally, but generally amounts to something along the lines of a miniature trial where both parties state their cases and provide whatever evidence they have of their testimony.
So.... firing a person because you don't like the way they look, or because they have a bad attitude is entirely allowed... but in absence of notice, you will need to compensate the person based on how long they've worked there.
having witnessed this exact scenario happen in my own family, yes.
The medication stops the weight gain... but does absolutely nothing to help bring any weight already back under control as a fully functioning metabolism would.
You mean things like banning it on airplane flights, in restaurants, etc? Interesting idea... not sure how that'd work out though.
You weren't sacked because you were too fat.... you were given the reason for dismissal: shortage of work. Now you want to invent an excuse that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything? If you were my employee, I'd sack you for being an asshat with an overinflated sense of entitlement.
Frankly, I have a far bigger problem with this guy's attitude than I do with them considering obesity a disability... not that I think that is a good idea either.