Some of us believe that the government isn't there to ban every single behavior that we find distasteful. That doesn't mean that we are "happy to help" encourage it.
Gen Con should be (and are) permitted to take their business elsewhere, for whatever the hell reason they want.
But the narrative that is being pushed that they are standing up to racists or homophobes by taking this action is inaccurate. They're primarily trying to make life painful for people that largely agree with them in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.
The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.
Voter ID, a drivers license or state issued ID card, which I believe if you are over 18 it is against the law to not carry photo ID. I know in my state it is illegal to not carry a state issued ID.
You know incorrectly. There are no laws compelling you to carry a photo ID, although as you note not carrying ID can limit what you can do.
How is it that we can put people to sleep every day by the thousands, cut them apart, sew them back together, and wake them back up -- and this is considered normal medical care -- but for some reason the same procedures aren't good enough for performing an execution?
I don't particularly like our implementation of the death penalty, but this aspect of the argument has just never added up for me.
It's you that's out of touch. So much so that I wonder if you're in marketing and thus feel somehow entitled to be dishonest. Just look at.net, word, excel or even google.
On what planet is the branding power of any of those examples derived from a domain name?
You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.
No, I'm not. But it's not the ".dev" TLD that makes the branding. You're making the assumption that having a ".dev" domain registered to yourself will transform into that branding without any evidence, and against all logic.
Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.
So what? Idiot hiring managers will do what they do, and there's a huge list of stupid reasons why they might refuse to hire somebody. The availability of.dev domains doesn't make any difference in that respect -- anyone who would make a decision based on something that moronic would just find some other stupid reason to hire the poor candidate.
At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have.dev, but eventually, as the.dev becomes a cognitive shortcut for "good developer" people will start thinking that those without.dev are in some way suspect - after all, if they were that good, why wouldn't they have a.dev?
If Google was capable of doing this, then there would already be a perception that all good developers are Google developers. And that isn't anywhere close to true.
This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.
Nobody but idiot managers think that not having a particular certification means that someone is a bad developer. This isn't a problem where general perception is concerned.
I really can't see any reason why this is any "worse" than a single entity owning, say, http://developer.com/. Domain names really aren't like real estate -- the namespace is so big that you're always going to be able to find an alternative.
If there's some group organization that feels strongly that there should be a TLD reserved for developers, then they should go ahead and register one.
That no non-Google developer can register a.dev is akin to saying that if you don't work for Google you're not really a developer.
This doesn't make much sense. No developers have a.dev URL today, so obviously nobody associates the two that way right now. And if it's restricted to Google developers, that association is never going to be formed in the future either.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.
Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.
You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.
It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.
I won't even throw a temper tantrum if you dare to present an alternative definition.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.
Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.
It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.
Some of us believe that the government isn't there to ban every single behavior that we find distasteful. That doesn't mean that we are "happy to help" encourage it.
What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone.
Sure they are. They (and you) want to take away people's freedom to avoid actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Maybe you have a good reason for doing so, but don't pretend that there is no restriction of freedom here. There is.
No.
Gen Con should be (and are) permitted to take their business elsewhere, for whatever the hell reason they want.
But the narrative that is being pushed that they are standing up to racists or homophobes by taking this action is inaccurate. They're primarily trying to make life painful for people that largely agree with them in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.
Would you mind pointing me to the people that want the government to force the convention to stay in Indiana?
Because I haven't heard a single person advocate that.
The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.
This is a freaking 10th class test. It's inconsequential in every way.
If that were true, then there wouldn't be so many people trying to cheat.
Voter ID, a drivers license or state issued ID card, which I believe if you are over 18 it is against the law to not carry photo ID. I know in my state it is illegal to not carry a state issued ID.
You know incorrectly. There are no laws compelling you to carry a photo ID, although as you note not carrying ID can limit what you can do.
How do you know there isn't wide spread fraud?
Well, because one particular political party insists that there isn't.
It just so happens that that party is the one with the most to gain from voter fraud, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
How is it that we can put people to sleep every day by the thousands, cut them apart, sew them back together, and wake them back up -- and this is considered normal medical care -- but for some reason the same procedures aren't good enough for performing an execution?
I don't particularly like our implementation of the death penalty, but this aspect of the argument has just never added up for me.
I recommend you follow your own advice. Stop feeding the trolls.
no one company should own or control TLDs. This is for the root servers to control NOT fucking Goog.
That's a statement of your unsupported opinion, not fact.
It's you that's out of touch. So much so that I wonder if you're in marketing and thus feel somehow entitled to be dishonest. Just look at .net, word, excel or even google.
On what planet is the branding power of any of those examples derived from a domain name?
You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.
No, I'm not. But it's not the ".dev" TLD that makes the branding. You're making the assumption that having a ".dev" domain registered to yourself will transform into that branding without any evidence, and against all logic.
Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.
So what? Idiot hiring managers will do what they do, and there's a huge list of stupid reasons why they might refuse to hire somebody. The availability of .dev domains doesn't make any difference in that respect -- anyone who would make a decision based on something that moronic would just find some other stupid reason to hire the poor candidate.
At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have .dev, but eventually, as the .dev becomes a cognitive shortcut for "good developer" people will start thinking that those without .dev are in some way suspect - after all, if they were that good, why wouldn't they have a .dev?
If Google was capable of doing this, then there would already be a perception that all good developers are Google developers. And that isn't anywhere close to true.
This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.
Nobody but idiot managers think that not having a particular certification means that someone is a bad developer. This isn't a problem where general perception is concerned.
But why does that matter?
I really can't see any reason why this is any "worse" than a single entity owning, say, http://developer.com/. Domain names really aren't like real estate -- the namespace is so big that you're always going to be able to find an alternative.
If there's some group organization that feels strongly that there should be a TLD reserved for developers, then they should go ahead and register one.
That no non-Google developer can register a .dev is akin to saying that if you don't work for Google you're not really a developer.
This doesn't make much sense. No developers have a .dev URL today, so obviously nobody associates the two that way right now. And if it's restricted to Google developers, that association is never going to be formed in the future either.
But dang, MS, you could write a check and it'd be a fucking rounding error on your earnings last year...
Same goes for the government...
And now apparently instead of at least having a sandbox to make changes in, they just dump their untested code into the main Slashdot page.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.
Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.
There's no reason that we can't make our electric companies act as storage for the consumers.
True, but there is a reason why we can't make them do it for free, which is what the complaint is about.
They said that it lowers the risk, not that it eliminates it. This is why they do studies instead of asking Slashdotters for anecdotes.
You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.
It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.
I won't even throw a temper tantrum if you dare to present an alternative definition.
After a job or three, basically nobody that knows shit cares were you went to school or even if you went to school.
Which suggests that for your first job or three, the people hiring you will, indeed, care where you got your degree.