But Rafael also said he did not agree "with" the code of conduct.
His point is perfectly clear — he rejects the very requirement to have to agree to accept this "code". And I agree with him. Why I agree, I think, is clear from my earlier posts — so this one will be the last.
My examples show, how this code can be abused to suppress free expression — what role (if any) would Raphael himself play in them is irrelevant.
This abuse potential is so strikingly clear, any suggestion that it is simply a "bug" in the code, is a lie or extreme naivete — it is obviously so by design. People, who wrote it and made it a governing document, did so deliberately, because, like all authoritarians, they seek to ban things they do not like.
I applaud Raphael's rejection of this authoritarianism and hope, he'll find much better employment elsewhere.
Whoever I am, Communists are objectively evil. Your trying to attack this point with fake mirth talking of bodily fluids and meteorism reveals you to be an idiot at best, a Communist at worst, or an apologist/sympathizer somewhere in the middle.
Whichever it is, none of the choices is a good one...
Lol Communists. Did one of them sap and impurify your precious bodily fluid or something?
Why, yes, they've organized a genocide, which wiped out millions of people in a country I'm from. Does that justify my subjective revulsion in your opinion, or do I need to add, that, objectively, they argue for and seek to further the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, one well ahead on that ignominious record even of the Nazis? And you do hate the Nazis, no "lol" about it, is there?
But thank you for confirming, even if implicitly, that — according to your reading of the CoC — Communists will, indeed, have to be tolerated. Why am I not surprised...
Agreement is implicit by registering for the conference.
"By registering to attend you agree to abide by the Terms of Conduct". That's quite explicit.
(albeit in a vague way): no personal attacks, good behavior, good manners
You concede the vagueness. So, I ask you again: suppose a woman finds a man in female bathroom... Is he violating the ToC with his bad manners, or is she violating the ToC by disrespecting his "gender fluidity" and "personally attacking" him?
I'm having a hard time understanding the point [...]
No, you are not, stop pretending. The point is, various people consider various things "offensive". I gave examples, you chose to ignore them, so I ask again: what if another attendee objects to my wearing a "MAGA" T-shirt? Am I offending his political beliefs — in violation of the Code of Conduct, or is he trying to suppress mine — in violation of same?
Can you guess, which side will win, if the decision-makers consider Outreachy to be a wholesome organization?
Do you really pretend to not understand, how this "ToC" not merely "has a potential" for abuse by people seeking to further their SJW agenda, but was created to be so abused in the first place?
you're making with your link
That it is possible, in today's America, to not only be expelled from a conference over a perfectly legal item of clothing deemed offensive by Social Justice Warriors, but have police be summoned over it — with a subsequent arrest.
If he can't agree to those minimum standards of acceptable behavior, then sure he shouldn't be admitted to the conference.
This is bullshit, and you know it. First of all, having to explicitly agree to this to attend a conference is like having to pledge allegiance every time to get food in a mess hall (as mocked so brilliantly in Catch-22 — great read).
How would like you like a daily popup on/. asking you to promise not to molest children today? Your probably would not... But, if you can't agree to that (much lower!) minimum standard of behavior, why should you be allowed to have Internet?
Seriously, like most corporations, LLVM has no separation of powers. The same people writing the Code of Conduct, are the ones enforcing it... Having it simply gives them a weapon to enforce their point of view.
And we know — from their choosing to associate with the trash like Outreachy — what that point of view is...
"Common sense is not too common" goes the saying. The code asks you to be "respectful" — what does it mean? If one were to show up to a conference in a T-shirt with a picture of AR-15, or a portrait of President Trump, would that be Ok? I've worked with people IRL, who'd file a complaint with Human Resources over such a thing — because they'd "feel unsafe". And it could get worse!
Likewise, what if a woman encounters an obvious man in a female bathroom — because he is "genderfluid" and felt feminine at the moment the nature called? Would the woman's negative reaction be "disrespectful"? By the standards of the Social Justice assholes, who'd consider yoga practice to be racist, it certainly would be...
We've been slowly boiled by these asshole for years. This man is a hero for raising awareness of this growing threat to our freedom.
For better or worse, that readiness to devastate the attacker has never been tested. Worse, the very concept is being chipped away by movies and other art, which mocks it, and glorifies dissenters, leakers, and outright traitors, who either refuse to follow orders, or subtly sabotage them out of concern for collateral damage.
If/when push comes to shove one day, some officers may decide to not push the button. Something like this for example: "Our firing back now will not protect those already doomed to die in Guam. Why kill millions of innocent on their side?" See? It is so convincing...
GitHub has sent an email to some of its 27 million users alerting them of a bug that exposed some user passwords in plaintext. "During the course of regular auditing, GitHub discovered that a recently introduced bug exposed a small number of users' passwords to our internal logging system
How far are the Americans from fielding a fighter-mountable laser-weapon?
The answer will affect, whether China can continue to use its current air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, or whether they can be destroyed by the aircraft's laser guns and ought to be replaced/hardened in a hurry.
What encryption algorithms can NSA crack today, and how long a key must one use to afford a one hour — or one week — delay?
Much of the battlefield communications does not need to be uncrackable. It just needs to be uncrackable for some time. Knowing, the enemy's capabilities allows one to achieve that goal with far less expense.
What is the success-rate of Americans' vaccines against certain biological weapons?
That is, which biological weapons (if any) would be practical in stopping — or slowing down — American forces.
Can the AI-systems employed by the US military reliably discern ballistic missiles from civilian rockets?
Americans will hesitate — for the priceless minutes/seconds — to shoot at object, if they aren't sure, it is military.
A similar list of questions important to commercial, rather than military, interests in China can also be constructed...
Knowledge isn't something that you can keep people from having.
You certainly can! This is why traitors/leakers are so valuable to adversaries...
Just because you're forced to buy the regular TV service does not mean that you want to nor will use it.
You — the individual — don't have to do it. Customers — the people — undoubtedly will.
And even if none do (a giant if!), they will have all paid Comcast money anyway, so they win compared to offering the extra bandwidth to everyone. Like I said, makes perfect sense.
It is neither illegal nor unethical for Comcast to do that... Nothing to see here.
yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you
It is not the internal bandwidth between Comcast facilities and their customers, I was talking about, but that between Comcast's network and the rest of the world. The data-packets of a movie broadcast by Comcast to its subscribers travel on the former. The data-packets streamed individually to different subscribers from different external services (such as YouTube or Netflix) consume the latter, much more limited, bandwidth.
The thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me and the rest of us here in the institution.
so I'm going to just assume you're being paid to shill for them instead. I bet they even offered you 3 months of discounted service
Yep, entirely too dumb to be allowed onto the Internet without a minder...
But, since you don't address if the 1960's budget was adequate
I do address it, implicitly, by pointing out, that, even if it were inadequate, it could not possibly have been only 25% of what was necessary.
or if there are costs climbing higher than inflation
You can make this suggestion a little less ridiculous by pointing out something else, that became 4 times more expensive than it was in the 60ies. Anything else — anything, where the government was not involved either by providing the service or setting the prices.
Your [emphasis mine] paying to insure a education floor. You can assume your customers and neighbors can read
Nope, I can not. 70% of the 8th graders nationwide fail reading proficiency. Most also lack in other knowledge — like distinguishing between mass and weight, Ukraine and Russia, Conservatism and Fascism.
That's a massive failure (or, worse, deliberate wrong-doing) of those same teachers, whose Unions are spending millions of dollars on the positive spin in mass-media and Slashdot.
You would not continue ordering pizza from the same place, after they quadruple their prices without any improvements in quality. How can you expect me to continue buying education (for myself or my neighbors) in the same circumstances?
Or, education in the 1960's wasn't spending enough and sucked?
Not four times...
Or maybe some costs went up faster than inflation?
Four times faster?.. Don't be (quite so) ridiculous...
Maybe we have computer labs and AV clubs with greenscreens
70% of eight-graders can't be considered proficient in reading. If the monies go into the "computer labs", and not enough is left for reading proficiency, then we certainly are doing it wrong[TM]. Just as I said.
"We're spending more money" isn't an argument.
We are spending 4 times more money is an answer, when the question is, "how do you know there is enough cash?"
Slashdot Mirror
His point is perfectly clear — he rejects the very requirement to have to agree to accept this "code". And I agree with him. Why I agree, I think, is clear from my earlier posts — so this one will be the last.
My examples show, how this code can be abused to suppress free expression — what role (if any) would Raphael himself play in them is irrelevant.
This abuse potential is so strikingly clear, any suggestion that it is simply a "bug" in the code, is a lie or extreme naivete — it is obviously so by design. People, who wrote it and made it a governing document, did so deliberately, because, like all authoritarians, they seek to ban things they do not like.
I applaud Raphael's rejection of this authoritarianism and hope, he'll find much better employment elsewhere.
Whoever I am, Communists are objectively evil. Your trying to attack this point with fake mirth talking of bodily fluids and meteorism reveals you to be an idiot at best, a Communist at worst, or an apologist/sympathizer somewhere in the middle.
Whichever it is, none of the choices is a good one...
Why, yes, they've organized a genocide, which wiped out millions of people in a country I'm from. Does that justify my subjective revulsion in your opinion, or do I need to add, that, objectively, they argue for and seek to further the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, one well ahead on that ignominious record even of the Nazis? And you do hate the Nazis, no "lol" about it, is there?
But thank you for confirming, even if implicitly, that — according to your reading of the CoC — Communists will, indeed, have to be tolerated. Why am I not surprised...
"By registering to attend you agree to abide by the Terms of Conduct". That's quite explicit.
You concede the vagueness. So, I ask you again: suppose a woman finds a man in female bathroom... Is he violating the ToC with his bad manners, or is she violating the ToC by disrespecting his "gender fluidity" and "personally attacking" him?
No, you are not, stop pretending. The point is, various people consider various things "offensive". I gave examples, you chose to ignore them, so I ask again: what if another attendee objects to my wearing a "MAGA" T-shirt? Am I offending his political beliefs — in violation of the Code of Conduct, or is he trying to suppress mine — in violation of same?
Can you guess, which side will win, if the decision-makers consider Outreachy to be a wholesome organization?
Do you really pretend to not understand, how this "ToC" not merely "has a potential" for abuse by people seeking to further their SJW agenda, but was created to be so abused in the first place?
That it is possible, in today's America, to not only be expelled from a conference over a perfectly legal item of clothing deemed offensive by Social Justice Warriors, but have police be summoned over it — with a subsequent arrest.
So, I have to "be welcoming" to Communists, Nazis, and KKK among coworkers?
Wow...
And idiots too? That's some "code" — for a software project...
This is bullshit, and you know it. First of all, having to explicitly agree to this to attend a conference is like having to pledge allegiance every time to get food in a mess hall (as mocked so brilliantly in Catch-22 — great read).
How would like you like a daily popup on /. asking you to promise not to molest children today? Your probably would not... But, if you can't agree to that (much lower!) minimum standard of behavior, why should you be allowed to have Internet?
Seriously, like most corporations, LLVM has no separation of powers. The same people writing the Code of Conduct, are the ones enforcing it... Having it simply gives them a weapon to enforce their point of view.
And we know — from their choosing to associate with the trash like Outreachy — what that point of view is...
"Common sense is not too common" goes the saying. The code asks you to be "respectful" — what does it mean? If one were to show up to a conference in a T-shirt with a picture of AR-15, or a portrait of President Trump, would that be Ok? I've worked with people IRL, who'd file a complaint with Human Resources over such a thing — because they'd "feel unsafe". And it could get worse!
Likewise, what if a woman encounters an obvious man in a female bathroom — because he is "genderfluid" and felt feminine at the moment the nature called? Would the woman's negative reaction be "disrespectful"? By the standards of the Social Justice assholes, who'd consider yoga practice to be racist, it certainly would be...
We've been slowly boiled by these asshole for years. This man is a hero for raising awareness of this growing threat to our freedom.
Well, she will not be able to go to Toronto for the same reason.
"Influential" my behind...
For better or worse, that readiness to devastate the attacker has never been tested. Worse, the very concept is being chipped away by movies and other art, which mocks it, and glorifies dissenters, leakers, and outright traitors, who either refuse to follow orders, or subtly sabotage them out of concern for collateral damage.
If/when push comes to shove one day, some officers may decide to not push the button. Something like this for example: "Our firing back now will not protect those already doomed to die in Guam. Why kill millions of innocent on their side?" See? It is so convincing...
Especially, if the base is not tightly run, and/or he has a cute Chinese wife/girlfriend and is well-versed in the rich and enlightening Chinese culture.
Is 27 million a small number?..
For someone dismissing another's argument as "bullshit" (twice!), you offer remarkably few citations. Zero in fact...
I'm waiting for a judge somewhere in Hawaii to declare this "unconstitutional". Because #RESIST!
Here are some examples, in no particular order:
How far are the Americans from fielding a fighter-mountable laser-weapon? The answer will affect, whether China can continue to use its current air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, or whether they can be destroyed by the aircraft's laser guns and ought to be replaced/hardened in a hurry. What encryption algorithms can NSA crack today, and how long a key must one use to afford a one hour — or one week — delay? Much of the battlefield communications does not need to be uncrackable. It just needs to be uncrackable for some time. Knowing, the enemy's capabilities allows one to achieve that goal with far less expense. What is the success-rate of Americans' vaccines against certain biological weapons? That is, which biological weapons (if any) would be practical in stopping — or slowing down — American forces. Can the AI-systems employed by the US military reliably discern ballistic missiles from civilian rockets? Americans will hesitate — for the priceless minutes/seconds — to shoot at object, if they aren't sure, it is military.A similar list of questions important to commercial, rather than military, interests in China can also be constructed...
You certainly can! This is why traitors/leakers are so valuable to adversaries...
Long before Clinton, there was a much "better" example illustrating your point.
Not in proper HD-quality, when multiple family-members use different TVs and computers all at once.
False. Do cite the law this would've violated in January. I'll wait.
You — the individual — don't have to do it. Customers — the people — undoubtedly will.
And even if none do (a giant if!), they will have all paid Comcast money anyway, so they win compared to offering the extra bandwidth to everyone. Like I said, makes perfect sense.
It is neither illegal nor unethical for Comcast to do that... Nothing to see here.
It is not the internal bandwidth between Comcast facilities and their customers, I was talking about, but that between Comcast's network and the rest of the world. The data-packets of a movie broadcast by Comcast to its subscribers travel on the former. The data-packets streamed individually to different subscribers from different external services (such as YouTube or Netflix) consume the latter, much more limited, bandwidth.
The thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me and the rest of us here in the institution.
Yep, entirely too dumb to be allowed onto the Internet without a minder...
I do address it, implicitly, by pointing out, that, even if it were inadequate, it could not possibly have been only 25% of what was necessary.
You can make this suggestion a little less ridiculous by pointing out something else, that became 4 times more expensive than it was in the 60ies. Anything else — anything, where the government was not involved either by providing the service or setting the prices.
People, who watch regular TV, will not be using the increased bandwidth for as long every day to stream movies.
I fail to see, what's so outrageous here...
As long as the misspending continues, the entity responsible should be starved of money, not given more.
This is true about any entity — be it your drug-abusing acquaintance, a corporation where you hold stock, or a government enterprise.
Nope, I can not. 70% of the 8th graders nationwide fail reading proficiency. Most also lack in other knowledge — like distinguishing between mass and weight, Ukraine and Russia, Conservatism and Fascism.
That's a massive failure (or, worse, deliberate wrong-doing) of those same teachers, whose Unions are spending millions of dollars on the positive spin in mass-media and Slashdot.
You would not continue ordering pizza from the same place, after they quadruple their prices without any improvements in quality. How can you expect me to continue buying education (for myself or my neighbors) in the same circumstances?
Not four times...
Four times faster?.. Don't be (quite so) ridiculous...
70% of eight-graders can't be considered proficient in reading. If the monies go into the "computer labs", and not enough is left for reading proficiency, then we certainly are doing it wrong[TM]. Just as I said.
We are spending 4 times more money is an answer, when the question is, "how do you know there is enough cash?"
Unfortunately, the costs of the private school are not instead of, but in addition to the costs of public ones, for an American taxpayer.
Hence the vouchers, which the teachers' unions fight tooth-and-claw in any way they can.
I'm pretty sure, that's Japan, actually...
Because this nice table convincingly shows, that the per-pupil spending in America's public schools has quadrupled since 1960ies (inflation-adjusted).
There is amply enough money being spent. We are just doing it wrong [TM].