No. The "Left", as you call it, or as I call it: people with fucking decency, disowned Dawkins because he used Islamophobia to chastise Western women to shut up about sexism and misogyny. That makes him a sexist asshole. And depending on how much he conflates Islam with 'looking Arabic' possibly a racist asshole too.
I am very sorry for you, but reality is not obliged to defer to your feelings, snowflake.
There is of course the possibility that they actually are horrid bigots. But of course you "conservatives" just want a safe space where you can be a bigot without consequences.
I don't see you refuting Lennart's argument, actually. He is right: Unix gives you the rope to hang yourself with, and a faulty directive in a systemd unit is as bad as a typo in a shell command (or a SysV startup script).
While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers,
Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.
Maybe not difficult to decrypt but simply sending it in a way we cannot detect.
But how is this essentially any different than a belief in the existence of God or Angels? Believers have also come up with various explanations why we can't detect such things, but in the end SETI runs into the same issues.
Gee, I didn't know Musk had been launching rockets that long.
Here's a hint, junior[1], if you are going to make a case for the superiority of private industry, don't mention examples that rely heavily on government-created infrastructure. It kind of undercuts your point.
[1] Anyone who is so aggressively dumbass libertarian as you is either a teen who just read Atlas Shrugged, or stuck in the mental age of one.
If consent is given under duress, it's not considered to be consent in the first case
Good boy.
it's just a strawman you've introduced.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I was merely commenting on the statement that consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn. Anyone with half a brain could see I posited a hypothetical, that's why the word 'if' introduced that particular statement. So that just proves you're an illiterate moron.
That's begging the question. Of course she can, if the consent was given on false information or under duress. That is why there is a case to be answered in the first place, to establish that, using proper procedures, in a court of law.
Oh fuck off with your neo-Nazi apologia. For one example, the FN traces its ancestry back to Occident, formed by Pierre Sidos, who was convicted of Nazi collaboration in 1946.
The FN is a direct descendant of the Nazi collaborators in Vichy.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess who insisted that criminalising Nazism was a pre-condition for an independent Germany?
Oh wait, it was those enlightened Free Speech activists known as the USA.
For the peanut gallery: I did not imply that Kulinksi and Pakman are possibly bigots, but that someone who gets called one might just actually be.
I have. Since we now have competing anecdotes, how about some actual arguments for a change?
Oh no, all you do is parrot talking points. Here's a cracker, Polly.
I see lots of unfounded assertions. I am not impressed.
Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. The sort of playground-level debating you neandertals excel at.
Sigh. Whining about a technicality in an example may make you feel like you're smart, to the rest of the world you're just a dick.
No. The "Left", as you call it, or as I call it: people with fucking decency, disowned Dawkins because he used Islamophobia to chastise Western women to shut up about sexism and misogyny. That makes him a sexist asshole. And depending on how much he conflates Islam with 'looking Arabic' possibly a racist asshole too.
I am very sorry for you, but reality is not obliged to defer to your feelings, snowflake.
There is of course the possibility that they actually are horrid bigots. But of course you "conservatives" just want a safe space where you can be a bigot without consequences.
I don't see you refuting Lennart's argument, actually. He is right: Unix gives you the rope to hang yourself with, and a faulty directive in a systemd unit is as bad as a typo in a shell command (or a SysV startup script).
In other words, parotted bullshit, no reasons.
Because the service doesn't? Really, nothing is a defense against shoddy software, so neither is systemd./p
And what would those be?
Why would you disagree with that? Since when do Universities get exempted from the First Amendment? Note that that also has some things to say about the government's right to interfere with who you associate with.
In other words, tech workers are particularly susceptible to Dunning-Kruger.
But how is this essentially any different than a belief in the existence of God or Angels? Believers have also come up with various explanations why we can't detect such things, but in the end SETI runs into the same issues.
You missed the news? Spain has stated that Scotland would be treated as any other potential entrant. Period.
Yoon bullshit.
Spain has stated that if Scottish independence is gained within a correct constitutional framework they will not oppose it.
I noticed in their recent coverage a massive anti-Kurdish bias; basically following the Ankara line.
But I notice this because I have some Kurdish acquaintances online, so the dictum that you need multiple sources remains true.
Wich, of course, per Dunning-Kruger means that he is a lot less awesome than he thinks.
An option that's merely 2.5 years out of date compared to Debian proper. Which is already not famed for being bleeding edge.
And if the moon were made of green cheese...
Like I said, go back to your basement and ask Mum for a biscuit. There's a good boy.
Gee, I didn't know Musk had been launching rockets that long.
Here's a hint, junior[1], if you are going to make a case for the superiority of private industry, don't mention examples that rely heavily on government-created infrastructure. It kind of undercuts your point.
[1] Anyone who is so aggressively dumbass libertarian as you is either a teen who just read Atlas Shrugged, or stuck in the mental age of one.
That's begging the question. Of course she can, if the consent was given on false information or under duress. That is why there is a case to be answered in the first place, to establish that, using proper procedures, in a court of law.
Oh fuck off with your neo-Nazi apologia. For one example, the FN traces its ancestry back to Occident, formed by Pierre Sidos, who was convicted of Nazi collaboration in 1946.
The FN is a direct descendant of the Nazi collaborators in Vichy.