Yes, if you go by a cartoonishly simplistic understanding of gender.
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
Again: Define the terms.
What about people who have both "male" and "female" features? How do you classify them?
You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.
It is something that is really wrong with someone, and which is appropriately treated in many cases not by medication or counseling but sexual reassignment surgery.
There are simply men and women. If, despite having been born with distinctive genitalia, someone considers himself to be of the opposite sex, then they suffer from a delusion:
a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary
My recent argument with one such person ended, when I asked him to define terms: what is the definition of the term "man"?
If you choose to reply to this, be sure to include your definition. And, no, do not try to imply some difference between "sex" and "gender" — they are synonyms (except when talking about grammar rules).
Like I said, these are all good arguments for wearing a helmet all the time — slippery roads can cause to fall on sidewalk and onto the road, for example, right in front of a car. Or an icicle may fall on your head. A construction guy 5 stories above may drop his hammer.
So, if you only wear the helmet when biking, you are inconsistent.
I wear a helmet all the time.
Ah, Ok, good for you...
Your forehead will take the full force of the initial impact [...]
I did a 94-mile trip last August. In the 12 hours I never fell once, but I did end up with a (very) sore whatsit — despite wearing specially-padded pants — and both pinkies shaking from the ulnar nerve problem. Had I been wearing a helmet, I would've had sore spots on the head as well. Use of protective armor is not free...
I will use lubrication and special gloves next time to mitigate the real problems, but the helmet would only increase them, while reducing a hypothetical...
The whole point was, waterboarding does not cause "grave harm". Even the scientists opposing the procedure, god bless their mighty hearts, can fault it only for the potential of dirty water seeping into nostrils and the high levels of stress-hormones. Nothing, in other words, that can't happen to a prisoner of an ordinary detention facility, military or civilian alike...
Inconvenience, maybe.. But gravely harm an innocent person.. No way.
You seem to use the term "innocent" as in "not convicted of wrong-doing by any court". Fine — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was certainly innocent in that sense, when he was waterboarded. Ok, now, are you going to condemn President Obama for his extensive killing of similarly innocent people? Why not? Mind you, Obama has already done it — on numerous occasions — whereas Trump merely says, he will.
If Obama got reelected comfortably despite such outrageous killings — with enthusiastic support of most Slashdotters — why should mere waterboarding be a problem for Trump?
But, if those killed by "Hellfire" on President Obama's orders were not quite innocent — and thus acceptable in your opinion — what makes you suspect, President Trump will order waterboarding of suspects with less evidence against them?
Would you or have worked on tech which could enable torture?
You may be expecting an unqualified "no", but the right answer is it depends. The unacceptable kinds of torture are those, which leave the subject dead or damaged. (And I mean real damage — not as in "needs counseling"). It may be useful to confine the definition of "torture" to such methods only — as was done by some people already.
no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing [emphasis mine -mi] of individuals to advance the nation’s security goals.
Don't know about you, but I'd rather be waterboarded by mistake, than killed by the same mistake.
Dealing with the government is rarely pleasant, but waterboarding does not cross any real lines. If the duly-elected President charged with protecting us deems it necessary, his subordinates better get on with it. Or resign. As George Orwell pointed out decades ago:
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Where does that put you morally and ethically?
Whether it is useful is another question, but "morally and ethically" there is nothing wrong with it. Deal with that.
whether you were calling me out for (perceived, not real) unfouned outrage
You may not have expressed outrage, but the highly moderated post, to which I first replied, did.
And it is this upmodding — coupled with the downmodding of my reply — that proves, how misguided the sentiment of the "silent majority" of Slashdot readers is.
For once; and that's the problem.
So, the cause for outrage this time is that there is no cause for outrage?
Seriously, people; this guy is right
Thanks...
(aside from a superfluous comma)
There must be a comma there in both Ukrainian and Russian, which were my first two languages, and I am too old to change...
how else are they trying to manipulate? And that's how criminals go free
That's a very good argument. What remains to show is that in this case the warrant-issuing judge was indeed "left in the dark". The write-up does not even allege that. Nor does TFA.
Heck, TFA implicitly admits, this was not the case — when it laments the judge's possible ignorance of Tor-technology:
It's worth noting that judges sometimes don't understand the technology behind the warrants they are asked to approve by police.
Police have done their work most professionally and there is no cause for outrage whatsoever.
Worse! The unfounded outrage dripping off this page's "insightful" comments cheapens and devalues the justified outrage in othercases.
Unless you are prepared to state, that something even stronger than the 4th Amendment protects our homes, I can't see, how you can fault Seattle cops in this case.
It is the judge's job to decide whether the suspicion is reasonable. If so, then to issue a warrant.
Which is exactly, what happened:
a team of six detectives from the Seattle Police Department who had a search warrant [emphasis mine -mi] to examine their equipment
must provide everything, even if it is exculpatory
Are you claiming, police deliberately withheld the "it could also be a tor-node" information from the judge? First of all, there is no way to even determine that the traffic is coming through Tor with any certainty. And second, even may be coming through Tor — and the judge knows, what it is — how is that "exculpatory"? Do distributors of child pornography become immune to prosecution by simply hosting a tor node on one of their computers?
How about we rephrase the title like this: "Seattle police investigating child pornography execute a search warrant"? Nothing happened, they did not even take the couple's computers — as used to happen before.
The folks knew, their computer could be used by criminals. It did happen. Police had reasonable cause for suspicion, obtained a search warrant, performed the search, found nothing and left. What exactly is the cause for outrage here?
A bicycle helmet will certainly help you if head meets the ground.
You have to be especially unlucky to hit the ground with your head, when falling off a bike. I never have, for example... But, if you wish to guard from that fine — are you wearing one at all times? Why limit it to bicycle — your head will hit the ground from about the same height whether you are biking or walking. Aren't you concerned about a much higher chance of falling, when it is icy outside, for example? Or of icicle falling on your head?
Some belt-and-suspenders kind of people might wear a helmet in all such situations, but if you do not, then you are inconsistent... And, probably, unduly influenced by helmet-manufacturers...
But I think it is worth it specifically to get to work.
Sure, if you think, it is worth it, go for it. I was primarily lamenting laws making it mandatory...
The company's jet pack normally has a range of about one-quarter of a mile (and reaches heights of 100 feet) with a flying time of 32 seconds
It may not be ready for regular transportation use, but military may finally have, what they wanted for decades. And not just to run faster, but to be able to get over a river or a mine-field or some fortified perimeter quickly.
Given how much more fun it is to ride without one, you may want to reconsider — unless you wear it all the time, even when walking. Just in case a car hits you...
Dunno about jetpacks, but bicycles just aren't fast enough for helmets to perceptibly increase one's chances in a rare accident to justify constantly incurring costs in comfort and situation-awareness during the rest of your riding. Yes, there are statistics showing correlation between fatalities and riding without helmet, but that does not prove causation.
Surely, everyone is entitled to making their own choices, and I'm not going to force anyone to ride without the protection they want. I just want the same freedom for myself.
"John Trump really does seem to have been a brilliant scientist," noting that he performed both radar and short-wave research for the allies during World War II and helped design medical X-ray machines.
This is about as relevant today as the much publicized history of George W. Bush's grandfather "dealing with Nazis".
WTF, are we preparing for a round of "Jeopardy" or something? I'll be happy to see Trump on my ballot come November, but his uncle has nothing to do with it.
Your house — and the local tax on it — may be "much" by your standards. But not by those of the cited billionaires. Their wealth is primarily in stocks and cash — real estates taxes hardly move a needle on their dashboards.
Or Mark Zuckerberg or the Koch Brothers or anyone else who has millions/billions and don't want to pay taxes on the money.
In countries, that do not tax wealth, only your actual income matters to your tax-bill. What you already have is irrelevant.
After all, I'm sure there's not a single Republican lawmaker who's upset at Bill Clinton for having such great economic success [...]
Whether other politicians are squeaky clean or not, you've got to admit, the Clinton Foundation racket is something special — not just for the scale, but also for the brazenness of it...
It's one thing to post your sketch to deviant art and have 12 people comment on it, it's another thing entirely to make a living off it.
Sure. But the art of computer programming is not for everyone either. And yet, countless thousands of mediocre programmers are reasonably well-off because of demand. A similar spike in demand may explode the ranks of artists. And, sure, many will be quite mediocre — but, perhaps, not quite as many. Because business acumen will not be as important for "living off it", as it is now — so artists talented but disorganized or clueless about accounting may still do well.
To put it another way, when the next industrial revolution starts putting people out of work where are we gonna get the money to pay all these so-so artists? Look at how hard getting the NEA funded is...
Money? Money is just a tool. You can't eat money nor cloth yourself in it — it is used simply to match your general usefulness (or that of your ancestors) with your rewards.
If the next industrial revolution makes things another order of magnitude more affordable, noticeably more of society's resources may go into creative pursuits... I cautiously say, it will be a good thing — though I still want my children to know programming...
For ages and generations an artist (writer, composer, singer, dancer, painter, what have you) had to be either independently wealthy or have a rich sponsor to create.
Cheap replication (coupled with strong copyrights and intellectual property laws) have helped, but it still requires a strong business acumen in addition to artistic talent for an artist to prosper.
If, indeed, computers and robots take up more of the drudgery in the next industrial revolution, the creative jobs may proliferate... And I don't mean simply people majoring in Arts, who then "sell out" to earn more — the actual artists. People, who want to be musicians today, but are (mediocre) programmers instead, because music does not pay... Maybe, it will?
Supposedly, AIs will be able to create art too, but I suspect, people will eventually treat such creations — deservingly or not — the way art-reproductions are treated today.
(To spoil the impression this post may have created in your mind, I'll point out, that this all may happen just as the people pushed to STEM by government enter the workforce...)
Slashdot Mirror
Again: Define the terms.
Y-chromosome.
Some "cultures" can't count beyond two nor discern colors... Would you denounce the Eurocentrism of the number 5 and the color red?
What's with the "community"? There are no "community" standards — the removed messages were deemed offensive by a handful of moderators. Moderators prone to keeping some posts more equal than others and susceptible to manipulation by evil regimes.
Calling them "community" is redefining terms...
Bigotry? What is that? Ah, dictionary to the rescue:
So, one "side" of this conflict wants people holding an opinion differing from their own punished.
The other wants to keep men out of women's bathrooms...
You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.
Such as by attaching a furry tail, whiskers, and retractable claws?
There are simply men and women. If, despite having been born with distinctive genitalia, someone considers himself to be of the opposite sex, then they suffer from a delusion:
My recent argument with one such person ended, when I asked him to define terms: what is the definition of the term "man"?
If you choose to reply to this, be sure to include your definition. And, no, do not try to imply some difference between "sex" and "gender" — they are synonyms (except when talking about grammar rules).
And, no, contrasting what you are vs. how you identify is bullshit too — unless you are prepared to treat this human as a cat, and this White woman as Black.
It was John Gilmore, who said in 1993:
I wonder, if he could've envisioned the next generation to celebrate censorship as Slashdot-posters do today...
If it really is a privately-funded undertaking, a link to gofundme or some such would be useful.
But if this is one of those "Ah, if only the evil RethugliKKKans allowed NASA to fund it" things, then no way no how.
Like I said, these are all good arguments for wearing a helmet all the time — slippery roads can cause to fall on sidewalk and onto the road, for example, right in front of a car. Or an icicle may fall on your head. A construction guy 5 stories above may drop his hammer.
So, if you only wear the helmet when biking, you are inconsistent.
Ah, Ok, good for you...
I did a 94-mile trip last August. In the 12 hours I never fell once, but I did end up with a (very) sore whatsit — despite wearing specially-padded pants — and both pinkies shaking from the ulnar nerve problem. Had I been wearing a helmet, I would've had sore spots on the head as well. Use of protective armor is not free...
I will use lubrication and special gloves next time to mitigate the real problems, but the helmet would only increase them, while reducing a hypothetical...
The whole point was, waterboarding does not cause "grave harm". Even the scientists opposing the procedure, god bless their mighty hearts, can fault it only for the potential of dirty water seeping into nostrils and the high levels of stress-hormones. Nothing, in other words, that can't happen to a prisoner of an ordinary detention facility, military or civilian alike...
You seem to use the term "innocent" as in "not convicted of wrong-doing by any court". Fine — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was certainly innocent in that sense, when he was waterboarded. Ok, now, are you going to condemn President Obama for his extensive killing of similarly innocent people? Why not? Mind you, Obama has already done it — on numerous occasions — whereas Trump merely says, he will.
If Obama got reelected comfortably despite such outrageous killings — with enthusiastic support of most Slashdotters — why should mere waterboarding be a problem for Trump?
But, if those killed by "Hellfire" on President Obama's orders were not quite innocent — and thus acceptable in your opinion — what makes you suspect, President Trump will order waterboarding of suspects with less evidence against them?
You may be expecting an unqualified "no", but the right answer is it depends. The unacceptable kinds of torture are those, which leave the subject dead or damaged. (And I mean real damage — not as in "needs counseling"). It may be useful to confine the definition of "torture" to such methods only — as was done by some people already.
Waterboarding is certainly not damaging — a rough arrest by a police may be far more harmful to the suspect — and still be justified. Likewise, a prolonged criminal investigation may be far more damaging psychologically. And don't even get me started on the exploding use of "Hellfire" missiles (pun intended) by the highest-placed opponent of waterboarding:
Don't know about you, but I'd rather be waterboarded by mistake, than killed by the same mistake.
Dealing with the government is rarely pleasant, but waterboarding does not cross any real lines. If the duly-elected President charged with protecting us deems it necessary, his subordinates better get on with it. Or resign. As George Orwell pointed out decades ago:
Whether it is useful is another question, but "morally and ethically" there is nothing wrong with it. Deal with that.
You may not have expressed outrage, but the highly moderated post, to which I first replied, did.
And it is this upmodding — coupled with the downmodding of my reply — that proves, how misguided the sentiment of the "silent majority" of Slashdot readers is.
So, the cause for outrage this time is that there is no cause for outrage?
Thanks...
There must be a comma there in both Ukrainian and Russian, which were my first two languages, and I am too old to change...
That's a very good argument. What remains to show is that in this case the warrant-issuing judge was indeed "left in the dark". The write-up does not even allege that. Nor does TFA.
Heck, TFA implicitly admits, this was not the case — when it laments the judge's possible ignorance of Tor-technology:
Police have done their work most professionally and there is no cause for outrage whatsoever.
Worse! The unfounded outrage dripping off this page's "insightful" comments cheapens and devalues the justified outrage in other cases.
Unless you are prepared to state, that something even stronger than the 4th Amendment protects our homes, I can't see, how you can fault Seattle cops in this case.
Which is exactly, what happened:
Are you claiming, police deliberately withheld the "it could also be a tor-node" information from the judge? First of all, there is no way to even determine that the traffic is coming through Tor with any certainty. And second, even may be coming through Tor — and the judge knows, what it is — how is that "exculpatory"? Do distributors of child pornography become immune to prosecution by simply hosting a tor node on one of their computers?
How about we rephrase the title like this: "Seattle police investigating child pornography execute a search warrant"? Nothing happened, they did not even take the couple's computers — as used to happen before.
The folks knew, their computer could be used by criminals. It did happen. Police had reasonable cause for suspicion, obtained a search warrant, performed the search, found nothing and left. What exactly is the cause for outrage here?
You have to be especially unlucky to hit the ground with your head, when falling off a bike. I never have, for example... But, if you wish to guard from that fine — are you wearing one at all times? Why limit it to bicycle — your head will hit the ground from about the same height whether you are biking or walking. Aren't you concerned about a much higher chance of falling, when it is icy outside, for example? Or of icicle falling on your head?
Some belt-and-suspenders kind of people might wear a helmet in all such situations, but if you do not, then you are inconsistent... And, probably, unduly influenced by helmet-manufacturers...
Sure, if you think, it is worth it, go for it. I was primarily lamenting laws making it mandatory...
So, what would the justifications be this time? Donald Trump's mistress exposed? Torture by MI6 proven? What?
It may not be ready for regular transportation use, but military may finally have, what they wanted for decades. And not just to run faster, but to be able to get over a river or a mine-field or some fortified perimeter quickly.
Helmets aren't especially useful and at least some research say, they increase risk to the bicyclist's health.
Given how much more fun it is to ride without one, you may want to reconsider — unless you wear it all the time, even when walking. Just in case a car hits you...
Dunno about jetpacks, but bicycles just aren't fast enough for helmets to perceptibly increase one's chances in a rare accident to justify constantly incurring costs in comfort and situation-awareness during the rest of your riding. Yes, there are statistics showing correlation between fatalities and riding without helmet, but that does not prove causation.
Surely, everyone is entitled to making their own choices, and I'm not going to force anyone to ride without the protection they want. I just want the same freedom for myself.
This is about as relevant today as the much publicized history of George W. Bush's grandfather "dealing with Nazis".
WTF, are we preparing for a round of "Jeopardy" or something? I'll be happy to see Trump on my ballot come November, but his uncle has nothing to do with it.
Your house — and the local tax on it — may be "much" by your standards. But not by those of the cited billionaires. Their wealth is primarily in stocks and cash — real estates taxes hardly move a needle on their dashboards.
Bullshit. For one example, Podesta-brothers have already been outed in numerous online publications.
Yeah, Putin had nothing to do with it — it is perfectly common for a cellist in Russia to have $2 billion in Panama. Right...
In countries, that do not tax wealth, only your actual income matters to your tax-bill. What you already have is irrelevant.
Whether other politicians are squeaky clean or not, you've got to admit, the Clinton Foundation racket is something special — not just for the scale, but also for the brazenness of it...
Sure. But the art of computer programming is not for everyone either. And yet, countless thousands of mediocre programmers are reasonably well-off because of demand. A similar spike in demand may explode the ranks of artists. And, sure, many will be quite mediocre — but, perhaps, not quite as many. Because business acumen will not be as important for "living off it", as it is now — so artists talented but disorganized or clueless about accounting may still do well.
Money? Money is just a tool. You can't eat money nor cloth yourself in it — it is used simply to match your general usefulness (or that of your ancestors) with your rewards.
If the next industrial revolution makes things another order of magnitude more affordable, noticeably more of society's resources may go into creative pursuits... I cautiously say, it will be a good thing — though I still want my children to know programming...
For ages and generations an artist (writer, composer, singer, dancer, painter, what have you) had to be either independently wealthy or have a rich sponsor to create.
Cheap replication (coupled with strong copyrights and intellectual property laws) have helped, but it still requires a strong business acumen in addition to artistic talent for an artist to prosper.
If, indeed, computers and robots take up more of the drudgery in the next industrial revolution, the creative jobs may proliferate... And I don't mean simply people majoring in Arts, who then "sell out" to earn more — the actual artists. People, who want to be musicians today, but are (mediocre) programmers instead, because music does not pay... Maybe, it will?
Supposedly, AIs will be able to create art too, but I suspect, people will eventually treat such creations — deservingly or not — the way art-reproductions are treated today.
(To spoil the impression this post may have created in your mind, I'll point out, that this all may happen just as the people pushed to STEM by government enter the workforce...)