Sweden can not guarantee they will not extradite him because they haven't received an extradition request and have therefore not officially examined the evidence of the crime such an extradition would accuse him of. It's a tricky situation, but asking for such a guarantee is essentially asking the Swedish legal system to rule on a future crime.
The Swedish legal system has to trust itself. It cannot say "we promise not to extradite you because we can see we would rule unfairly in favour of the U.S. if they were to make a trumped-up extradition request".
I agree with your goals but the sticking point here is DRM, which is ineffective (more than usual) in open source products like MythTV. If content producers eventually accept that users can easily save their subscribed streams then perhaps they will move toward a common standard. Until then we're stuck with proprietary code and individual deals.
The best part is that they drifted so that they would sound less like us. Talk about sour grapes
A lot of change in pronunciation comes from this mechanism, whether it's the cool girls on the playground making up their own inflections, or the aristocracy saying "sarvant", language becomes a means of class identification and differentiation.
As to US English sounding more original, I've seen a lot of debate on this. Some say particular UK accents are closer to Old English and the US is closer to Modern English (16th century), whereas others claim the idea is simply part of American mythology.
No amount of wanting will change your "default" hormonal state, or give you functional sex organs from your chosen gender.
That's not relevant either. The question of "who someone is" has to be answered by a combination of physical and mental, and the existence of this condition brings up all sorts of interesting questions about how society treats gender and how absolute that is.
For a license database it is about identification. This could go one of two ways; what does the ambo see when he picks up your pieces after an accident (birth gender, most likely)? Or what does the cop see when she pulls you over for speeding (chosen gender, most likely)?
Really it is about official identification. If the goverment allows you to change your gender then you are Jane Bloggs (F) - no point in different departments recording this differently.
I would have assume precisely the opposite. Your reasoning is interesting, however my (admittedly non-PC) take is that gender dysphoria often has a grass-is-greener motivation (similar to how people fall in love with another country because the realities of life in their own are hard).
Also in the masculine/feminine spectrum of stereotypes, as defined by cultural expectations, there is plenty of crossover (gentle men etc.), and for these people it definitely is difficult to fit in. So, while you may focus on romantic options, I would think it is people romanticising the other side to a point where they wish to identify with them. The question is, can that wish invert sexual attraction? It seems unlikely.
A quick Wikipedia check suggests;
* male-to-female: 38% bisexual, 35% attracted to women, and 27% attracted to men
* female-to-male: somewhat unclear, but majority of trans men [are] attracted primarily or exclusively to women
So transgender people starting as men started as heterosexual and became homosexual. Surprisingly (for me) transgender women were the opposite.
The embarassment is because transgender people themselves consider their condition to be a flaw. They would dearly like to have been born with the opposite set of chromosomes.
People hold various things as private because they worry society will judge them as inferior (and sometimes it is inferior). Losing a breast to cancer, webbed toes, infertility etc. - not their fault but generally private and embarassing to reveal.
Not if the whole reason for recording your gender in a database has to do with other people identifying you.
Good point, the designation exists in the database for practical, not political, reasons. It shows that there are some cases where indentification by gender is less effective, but since transgendered people are considered their preferred gender 'N' in various other areas of life it would be confusing to use !N instead.
This identification exposes the odd conflict between transgender and feminism. Feminism teaches us that males and females are inherently equal and any strict roles are stereotypes imposed by culture, not nature. Transgenderism says "no I am not that culturally imposed stereotype, I am the other one".
One reason is that gun and traffic deaths are relatively stable and therefore, for most people, are a known risk they have some control over whether to take or not. Terrorism has the potential to be much larger. If the Sep 11 hijackers had had access to 100s of nukes it's likely they would have used them instead.
Yes, this study was more an experiment in social dynamics than wine discernment. There is a lot of pressure in a wine club to appear knowledgable, leading to an emperor's-new-clothes situation.
Almost all people no longer believe might makes right in invading another country so the GP's point - contrasting the early U.S. moral narrative with their actual, despicable behaviour - is not countered by your statement.
Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."
Rupert Murdoch used this idea recently to argue that capitalism was the moral system.* "Worthy" is a red herring here as it carries righteous overtones. Since it is defined in the same sentence we can rewrite as;
Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of individuals who provide things other people want."
Now it isn't self-declaring as high-minded. From outside we can then ask, is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but maybe it's the fairest system we have. One issue is that the concentration of wealth allows those who hold it to change what people want (monopolies, rent seeking).
* Unfortunately he stated that the motivation of greed to provide what others want shows that it is altruistic.
That's not a bug it's a deliberate feature. For what it's worth I don't like it either, you can turn it off in about:config by setting browser.fixup.alternate.enabled = false
I'm in accord with you that this feature is undesirable, but it's not the end of the world! You may already know but you can turn it off (keyword.enabled = false), see
As it turns out I've been on a new machine for a few months and forgot to change this - haven't had a problem (nor done a search, deliberate or accidental, through the URL bar) in this time. Changing it anyway - standards are simpler and won't bite you when you least expect it.
I find it hard to believe that looks play a diminished role in online dating
I tend to agree, although there are two competing principles at work;
1. IRL, politness forces you to interact with people irrespective of their looks. Online you can click them away.
2. Online, you have to communicate verbally much more, you aren't forced to scrutinise them visually
You're equating easy with simple, as if intellectual ease is the only type. Easiness is the amount of effort. Childbirth, on average, takes a lot of physical and emotional effort but not much intellectual effort.
I agree that a good rule of thumb is that 'natural' implies simpler. Then if easy != simple, and natural == simple, then loosely natural != easy:)
Natural has a couple of defintions; that which occurs in nature (homosexuality, rape, theft, murder) and a more metaphysical definition of what should occur according to some ideal (no rape, no theft, no murder and, in the opinion of the anti-gay marriage camp, no homosexuality). I think the original marriage=hard poster is simultaneously using both to create a conundrum.
That's not really relevant because the choice is between disclosing to the software makers and disclosing to the public, not leaving the hole in the product. Given the hole already exists, is it more secure to let the public (consisting of both good and bad actors) know or not?
The answer to that can change depending on the nature of the vulnerability (can the public protect themselves by changing a setting for example) and the way the software company can be expected to respond (will they sit on their hands unless faced with a PR disaster?).
That's not the dichotomy. It depends how responsible the disclosure is. Say you notice the girl next door sleeps naked with her window accidentally open. Do you go to the seediest pub with a street map to her house and stand on a table to point out what a problem this is, or do you inform her so she can fix the security issue?
Obviously that's a terrible analogy as the point of publicly disclosing a security flaw is to warn those who may be affected (if we're generous, perhaps it's self-serving publicity). However doing so contains elements of the pub analogy. Responsible disclosure is weighing up the damage of both courses of action. Can anyone protect themselves knowing this exploit? In this case not easily. Can a script kiddy take the convenient code example and run with it? They surely can.
Once again the internet blurs the boundaries between public/publishing and private. On one hand this is like complaining to the paper company because someone wrote a nasty note using one of their products. On the other hand web sites do control the means of publishing and bear some responsibilities.
Note they are currently simply exploring. From the prosecutor: "This is an open investigation without named suspects, as yet. Facebook itself is not under investigation."
[The US] pay[s] at least half again as much as any other country for healthcare
I sometimes wonder if this is a result of the large population. Bureaucracy may have exponential growth against population size, allowing smaller European countries more agility with their social programs. Or perhaps it is the notoriously corrupt (for a first-world country) US political scene and the power of lobby groups. Or maybe it's some random cultural factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Sweden can not guarantee they will not extradite him because they haven't received an extradition request and have therefore not officially examined the evidence of the crime such an extradition would accuse him of. It's a tricky situation, but asking for such a guarantee is essentially asking the Swedish legal system to rule on a future crime.
The Swedish legal system has to trust itself. It cannot say "we promise not to extradite you because we can see we would rule unfairly in favour of the U.S. if they were to make a trumped-up extradition request".
First, there are signs that the hardcore gamer market is soft: console sales in the United States dropped 21 percent in 2012
No troll intended, but since when were consoles, with their meagre amount of buttons and auto-targeting, considered hardcore gaming?
Give it 5 years and we'll be seeing stories about how the causal iWatch gamers are eating into the hardcore tablet gaming market.
I agree with your goals but the sticking point here is DRM, which is ineffective (more than usual) in open source products like MythTV. If content producers eventually accept that users can easily save their subscribed streams then perhaps they will move toward a common standard. Until then we're stuck with proprietary code and individual deals.
You have absolutely no right to tell others how they should dress... period.
I haven't seen any laws proposed. People are trying to convince others that a particular way of dressing has negative consequences.
The best part is that they drifted so that they would sound less like us. Talk about sour grapes
A lot of change in pronunciation comes from this mechanism, whether it's the cool girls on the playground making up their own inflections, or the aristocracy saying "sarvant", language becomes a means of class identification and differentiation.
As to US English sounding more original, I've seen a lot of debate on this. Some say particular UK accents are closer to Old English and the US is closer to Modern English (16th century), whereas others claim the idea is simply part of American mythology.
Very interesting, thank you.
No amount of wanting will change your "default" hormonal state, or give you functional sex organs from your chosen gender.
That's not relevant either. The question of "who someone is" has to be answered by a combination of physical and mental, and the existence of this condition brings up all sorts of interesting questions about how society treats gender and how absolute that is.
For a license database it is about identification. This could go one of two ways; what does the ambo see when he picks up your pieces after an accident (birth gender, most likely)? Or what does the cop see when she pulls you over for speeding (chosen gender, most likely)?
Really it is about official identification. If the goverment allows you to change your gender then you are Jane Bloggs (F) - no point in different departments recording this differently.
Do you really think the editors posted this story so we'd have a long discussion on database design?
I would have assume precisely the opposite. Your reasoning is interesting, however my (admittedly non-PC) take is that gender dysphoria often has a grass-is-greener motivation (similar to how people fall in love with another country because the realities of life in their own are hard).
Also in the masculine/feminine spectrum of stereotypes, as defined by cultural expectations, there is plenty of crossover (gentle men etc.), and for these people it definitely is difficult to fit in. So, while you may focus on romantic options, I would think it is people romanticising the other side to a point where they wish to identify with them. The question is, can that wish invert sexual attraction? It seems unlikely.
A quick Wikipedia check suggests;
* male-to-female: 38% bisexual, 35% attracted to women, and 27% attracted to men
* female-to-male: somewhat unclear, but majority of trans men [are] attracted primarily or exclusively to women
So transgender people starting as men started as heterosexual and became homosexual. Surprisingly (for me) transgender women were the opposite.
The embarassment is because transgender people themselves consider their condition to be a flaw. They would dearly like to have been born with the opposite set of chromosomes.
People hold various things as private because they worry society will judge them as inferior (and sometimes it is inferior). Losing a breast to cancer, webbed toes, infertility etc. - not their fault but generally private and embarassing to reveal.
Not if the whole reason for recording your gender in a database has to do with other people identifying you.
Good point, the designation exists in the database for practical, not political, reasons. It shows that there are some cases where indentification by gender is less effective, but since transgendered people are considered their preferred gender 'N' in various other areas of life it would be confusing to use !N instead.
This identification exposes the odd conflict between transgender and feminism. Feminism teaches us that males and females are inherently equal and any strict roles are stereotypes imposed by culture, not nature. Transgenderism says "no I am not that culturally imposed stereotype, I am the other one".
One reason is that gun and traffic deaths are relatively stable and therefore, for most people, are a known risk they have some control over whether to take or not. Terrorism has the potential to be much larger. If the Sep 11 hijackers had had access to 100s of nukes it's likely they would have used them instead.
Yes, this study was more an experiment in social dynamics than wine discernment. There is a lot of pressure in a wine club to appear knowledgable, leading to an emperor's-new-clothes situation.
Almost all people no longer believe might makes right in invading another country so the GP's point - contrasting the early U.S. moral narrative with their actual, despicable behaviour - is not countered by your statement.
Beet them to a purple, sticky mess.
Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."
Rupert Murdoch used this idea recently to argue that capitalism was the moral system.* "Worthy" is a red herring here as it carries righteous overtones. Since it is defined in the same sentence we can rewrite as;
Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of individuals who provide things other people want."
Now it isn't self-declaring as high-minded. From outside we can then ask, is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but maybe it's the fairest system we have. One issue is that the concentration of wealth allows those who hold it to change what people want (monopolies, rent seeking).
* Unfortunately he stated that the motivation of greed to provide what others want shows that it is altruistic.
Most sophisticated? Take that iOS!
That's not a bug it's a deliberate feature. For what it's worth I don't like it either, you can turn it off in about:config by setting browser.fixup.alternate.enabled = false
I'm in accord with you that this feature is undesirable, but it's not the end of the world! You may already know but you can turn it off (keyword.enabled = false), see
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-web-address-bar
As it turns out I've been on a new machine for a few months and forgot to change this - haven't had a problem (nor done a search, deliberate or accidental, through the URL bar) in this time. Changing it anyway - standards are simpler and won't bite you when you least expect it.
I find it hard to believe that looks play a diminished role in online dating
I tend to agree, although there are two competing principles at work;
1. IRL, politness forces you to interact with people irrespective of their looks. Online you can click them away.
2. Online, you have to communicate verbally much more, you aren't forced to scrutinise them visually
You're equating easy with simple, as if intellectual ease is the only type. Easiness is the amount of effort. Childbirth, on average, takes a lot of physical and emotional effort but not much intellectual effort.
I agree that a good rule of thumb is that 'natural' implies simpler. Then if easy != simple, and natural == simple, then loosely natural != easy :)
Natural has a couple of defintions; that which occurs in nature (homosexuality, rape, theft, murder) and a more metaphysical definition of what should occur according to some ideal (no rape, no theft, no murder and, in the opinion of the anti-gay marriage camp, no homosexuality). I think the original marriage=hard poster is simultaneously using both to create a conundrum.
Security through obscurity is no security at all.
That's not really relevant because the choice is between disclosing to the software makers and disclosing to the public, not leaving the hole in the product. Given the hole already exists, is it more secure to let the public (consisting of both good and bad actors) know or not?
The answer to that can change depending on the nature of the vulnerability (can the public protect themselves by changing a setting for example) and the way the software company can be expected to respond (will they sit on their hands unless faced with a PR disaster?).
That's not the dichotomy. It depends how responsible the disclosure is. Say you notice the girl next door sleeps naked with her window accidentally open. Do you go to the seediest pub with a street map to her house and stand on a table to point out what a problem this is, or do you inform her so she can fix the security issue?
Obviously that's a terrible analogy as the point of publicly disclosing a security flaw is to warn those who may be affected (if we're generous, perhaps it's self-serving publicity). However doing so contains elements of the pub analogy. Responsible disclosure is weighing up the damage of both courses of action. Can anyone protect themselves knowing this exploit? In this case not easily. Can a script kiddy take the convenient code example and run with it? They surely can.
Once again the internet blurs the boundaries between public/publishing and private. On one hand this is like complaining to the paper company because someone wrote a nasty note using one of their products. On the other hand web sites do control the means of publishing and bear some responsibilities.
Note they are currently simply exploring. From the prosecutor: "This is an open investigation without named suspects, as yet. Facebook itself is not under investigation."
[The US] pay[s] at least half again as much as any other country for healthcare
I sometimes wonder if this is a result of the large population. Bureaucracy may have exponential growth against population size, allowing smaller European countries more agility with their social programs. Or perhaps it is the notoriously corrupt (for a first-world country) US political scene and the power of lobby groups. Or maybe it's some random cultural factor.