Seventh, to refute your point about sperm and egg cells dying and those deaths not being denounced:
Neither sperm nor egg cells have the complete DNA nor other structures to become a human being if left alone. In the same way that a chicken egg is made of the same elements that are in dirt. Dirt won't become a chicken if left to follow the natural course of events. A chicken egg does become a chicken if its natural progress isn't interrupted.
A zygote naturally and normally becomes a fetus which becomes a baby and so on. A sperm cell on its own doesn't and neither does an egg cell.
My position isn't that every single atom in the universe which could be used to produce a human must be used in such a fashion.
My position is that every innocent human life is precious. Including people when they are asleep. Including old men and old women. Including children. Including fetuses.
Nobody is talking about "kill all the zygotes" except you, you logic-impaired
First, yes, someone was talking about killing zygotes: "No Human Beings are aborted coward". By the way, you are "a grammar impaired" and so is AutodidactLabrat who turned AC immediately after calling me a coward.
Second, you didn't respond to the point I made. You dodged it and tried to say that since bad things naturally happen that it excuses us from murder. Well people die from being overweight all the time too, but nobody is saying it's OK to murder overweight people are they?
Third, you're using ad hominem attacks and at the same time trying to portray yourself as the paragon of reason. That's rich.
Fourth, about the oak trees thing: now it's you who is failing to think. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Furthermore, the point isn't about whether there are more than one ways to exterminate all X's. It's about whether a very young X is still an X. I think so. You think not. I'm calling you a murderer or at least a self-righteous supporter of murder.
I don't have a solution to all the ills of the world. I can't save every last single person from death. But killing innocent children is still wrong. Even if nobody bemoans the deaths of a mass murderer, even if nobody bemoans the deaths of sperm or egg cells (following your chain of logic there) it's still wrong to kill innocent children.
Fifth, none of you responded to this:
Considering that a zygote literally has the DNA of its parents then in what scientific sense can you say that the zygote isn't a human?
Sixth, who's the coward? Me or the lot of you dog-piling me and modding me down for standing up for the truth? Oh, you don't like being called a murderer? Or is it just that you hate the idea of having real science and reason rubbed in your self-righteous arrogant faces when you had thought to label yourselves the masters of all that is intelligent? I was absolutely correct in my original assessment that posting a comment valuing human life over a convenient lie would get me modded down and attacked by true cowards-- the lot of you.
But if you look at it from a Republican/Democrat perspective you don't see a lot of prominent Democratic politicians supporting those dogmas in the same way that prominent Republicans do, particularly those running for President who have to contort themselves in absurd ways to avoid offending the party base...
I disagree. I believe I've read on numerous occasions that very prominent Democrats believe there's an almost 30% wage gap between men and women in this country due to sexism. That is objectively false when doing an apples-to-apples comparison instead of comparing the median male to median female incomes.
Not to mention articles posted here on/. about certain famous people and large demographics (liberal) from (extremely) liberal California who believe that vaccines cause autism.
So you're saying an acorn isn't a tree. But I ask: if we destroy all the acorns will we continue to have oak trees?
You say that a minnow isn't a fish. But I ask: if we kill all the minnows will there still be any fish in the stream?
You say that an egg isn't a chicken. But I ask: if we destroy all the eggs will there be any chickens in thirty years?
You say that a child isn't a man. But I ask: if we kill all the children will there be any people in two hundred years?
You say that a zygote isn't a child. But I ask: if we kill all the zygotes will there be any children in a few months?
Considering that a zygote literally has the DNA of its parents then in what scientific sense can you say that the zygote isn't a human? Be very careful here, O evolutionist!
Unfortunately, we have the feminists and SJWs focused on lambasting everyone for a wage gap in the workplace that turns out to be just their shrill whining over nothing, the same way they go on about man-spreading and fart rape.
I also noticed that there was a single "cheerleader" for a group of 5 or 6 programmers.
That's where the motivation is coming from. The males are all now in extreme competition with each other to impress her. They all know that it's just her job, but they all also know that they're all just human. Who's to say she might not just develop a special relationship with the best worker in the group?
In order to get the job at all she'd have to be fairly good looking, and almost certainly single and China already has a big gender gap.
This has nothing to do with sexism. It's a cold, calculated, move by management to turn up the pressure.
Rock the boat and lose a comparatively awesome job in the middle of a big recession while surrounded by a billion people who all cut off their left leg to have that job? I think not. I think she's going to be ecstatic and oh-so-very-happy-to-here thank you for the revolution, comrade.
Whether it's considered creepy or not is rather beside the point.
RMS is focused on the issue of freedom. It should be your choice whether, how, and when to reveal your location and data.
With freedom then you can control the creepiness or deal with it appropriately. Without freedom you're just stuck.
Because of the way radio works all towers and phones and radio receivers in range are already aware of all this and more. That's why RMS was pointing out the necessity of waiting until one gets to a safe location before advertising one's position.
Tin-foil-hat? I don't think so; not after the app that tracked women's locations and gave a map. There have been others as well.
On the contrary, I found RMS to be extremely polite in his responses. Everything he said was 100% consistent and 100% focused on the good of all.
Is it impolite to point out that you'll die if you jump, with no parachute, from ten thousand feet?
Is it impolite to insist that in order to be safe everyone who ascends to ten thousand feet should have the benefit of a parachute?
RMS, in the answers right at the top of this page answered you:
Please don't associate me with advocacy of something "open". I have never used that term.[emphasis added]
I disagree with “open source”, of course. However, before that term was coined in 1998, the term "open software" was used to mean something else. It meant that users could choose from various components that could interoperate. I think that's the term this question refers to.
Unix was referred to as "open software", in that sense. However, although Unix was "open", it was not free software or even close to it. Being "open" meant that the user had (in theory) a choice between various proprietary programs -- but that's not freedom, that's only having the chance to choose your master. Being "open" was insufficient because what we need is "free". That's why I needed to write a free operating system, the GNU operating system, to replace Unix.
In other words, the AC you're responding to is correct both in the sense of what RMS would say and in the sense that writing your own alternative to systemd is the ethical choice if you don't like systemd.
Note that what is ethical is not the same as what is easy. Thank you, RMS, for being consistent and ethical!
Hurry, everyone prostrate yourselves and beg forgiveness for your eco-sins! Yes, flagellate yourselves to prove (that is, to show off) how sorry you are. Oh, and in case you're just too busy but are never the less still very very sorry for all the eco-sinning that you've done then we've calculated it all up and converted the proper amount of sorriness into dollars. Just pay this amount to the eco pope and we'll call it even.
Is it any wonder why folks think all this green/tree-hugging/self-righteous eco bullshit is too much like a scam or a bullshit religion even worse than scientology?
Even if there's any truth to global warming articles and bullshit like TFA do far more damage to the cause than any amount of rhetoric from established religions or counter evidence/claims from deniers.
For myself I'll believe it's a problem when it actually starts impacting daily life-- PAH! Two degrees Celsius. No, global warming / climate change / whatever-you-want-to-call-it-today-so-you-don't-look-asinine-in-a-year is a strategic ploy to get us off of foreign oil or just a self-righteous new religion at best; at worst it's a scam
In ECMAScript 5, one often represents concepts (think enum constants) via strings.
var COLOR_RED = 'RED';
var COLOR_ORANGE = 'ORANGE';
var COLOR_YELLOW = 'YELLOW';
var COLOR_GREEN = 'GREEN';
var COLOR_BLUE = 'BLUE';
var COLOR_VIOLET = 'VIOLET';
However, strings are not as unique as we’d like them to be.
(...)
Interestingly, even though we do so, there can still be mix-ups. For example, someone may define a constant for a mood:
var MOOD_BLUE = 'BLUE';
Now the value of BLUE is not unique anymore and MOOD_BLUE can be mistaken for it.
Symbols are a kludgey hack to try and reach this little thing called type safety which some people find to be really useful for y'know writing programs and libraries longer than "hello world".
(Take note of this, Atom, Vivaldi, and the rest who think that JS + CSS + HTML will magically make everything super fast, responsive, and a glorious nirvana of such awesome code that you've probably never heard of)
Except that if you two actually read the comments posted on this page you'd see things like:
I quote verbatim:
"All but one of the programs cited in her notes had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier. The exception was prepared by Babbage for her, although she did detect a 'bug' in it. Not only is there no evidence that Ada ever prepared a program for the Analytical Engine, but her correspondence with Babbage shows that she did not have the knowledge to do so."
I get that some women feel bad for a lack of contibution to computing but bold faced fabrication is only going to earn you the emnity of intelligent people, presumably of which computing would have a number.
and
This is one of their in-roads. Note all the five-dollar words and appeals to emotional wonderment.
Telling it how it is isn't the same as being an asshole or a misogynist.
Your self-righteous white knighting is disgusting and insulting to me. My wife feels the same as I do, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
You know perfectly well the point I was makingbut you chose to equivocate.
Seventh, to refute your point about sperm and egg cells dying and those deaths not being denounced:
Neither sperm nor egg cells have the complete DNA nor other structures to become a human being if left alone. In the same way that a chicken egg is made of the same elements that are in dirt. Dirt won't become a chicken if left to follow the natural course of events. A chicken egg does become a chicken if its natural progress isn't interrupted.
A zygote naturally and normally becomes a fetus which becomes a baby and so on. A sperm cell on its own doesn't and neither does an egg cell.
My position isn't that every single atom in the universe which could be used to produce a human must be used in such a fashion.
My position is that every innocent human life is precious. Including people when they are asleep. Including old men and old women. Including children. Including fetuses.
Nobody is talking about "kill all the zygotes" except you, you logic-impaired
First, yes, someone was talking about killing zygotes: "No Human Beings are aborted coward". By the way, you are "a grammar impaired" and so is AutodidactLabrat who turned AC immediately after calling me a coward.
Second, you didn't respond to the point I made. You dodged it and tried to say that since bad things naturally happen that it excuses us from murder. Well people die from being overweight all the time too, but nobody is saying it's OK to murder overweight people are they?
Third, you're using ad hominem attacks and at the same time trying to portray yourself as the paragon of reason. That's rich.
Fourth, about the oak trees thing: now it's you who is failing to think. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Furthermore, the point isn't about whether there are more than one ways to exterminate all X's. It's about whether a very young X is still an X. I think so. You think not. I'm calling you a murderer or at least a self-righteous supporter of murder.
I don't have a solution to all the ills of the world. I can't save every last single person from death. But killing innocent children is still wrong. Even if nobody bemoans the deaths of a mass murderer, even if nobody bemoans the deaths of sperm or egg cells (following your chain of logic there) it's still wrong to kill innocent children.
Fifth, none of you responded to this:
Considering that a zygote literally has the DNA of its parents then in what scientific sense can you say that the zygote isn't a human?
Sixth, who's the coward? Me or the lot of you dog-piling me and modding me down for standing up for the truth? Oh, you don't like being called a murderer? Or is it just that you hate the idea of having real science and reason rubbed in your self-righteous arrogant faces when you had thought to label yourselves the masters of all that is intelligent? I was absolutely correct in my original assessment that posting a comment valuing human life over a convenient lie would get me modded down and attacked by true cowards-- the lot of you.
No Human Beings are aborted coward
Right there. That's where someone said it. He said unborn children aren't human.
But if you look at it from a Republican/Democrat perspective you don't see a lot of prominent Democratic politicians supporting those dogmas in the same way that prominent Republicans do, particularly those running for President who have to contort themselves in absurd ways to avoid offending the party base...
I disagree. I believe I've read on numerous occasions that very prominent Democrats believe there's an almost 30% wage gap between men and women in this country due to sexism. That is objectively false when doing an apples-to-apples comparison instead of comparing the median male to median female incomes.
/. about certain famous people and large demographics (liberal) from (extremely) liberal California who believe that vaccines cause autism.
Not to mention articles posted here on
That is addressing the issue. How about answering my questions instead of saying I'm using logical fallacies when I'm not?
So you're saying an acorn isn't a tree. But I ask: if we destroy all the acorns will we continue to have oak trees?
You say that a minnow isn't a fish. But I ask: if we kill all the minnows will there still be any fish in the stream?
You say that an egg isn't a chicken. But I ask: if we destroy all the eggs will there be any chickens in thirty years?
You say that a child isn't a man. But I ask: if we kill all the children will there be any people in two hundred years?
You say that a zygote isn't a child. But I ask: if we kill all the zygotes will there be any children in a few months?
Considering that a zygote literally has the DNA of its parents then in what scientific sense can you say that the zygote isn't a human? Be very careful here, O evolutionist!
Unfortunately, we have the feminists and SJWs focused on lambasting everyone for a wage gap in the workplace that turns out to be just their shrill whining over nothing, the same way they go on about man-spreading and fart rape.
Fixed.
I also noticed that there was a single "cheerleader" for a group of 5 or 6 programmers.
That's where the motivation is coming from. The males are all now in extreme competition with each other to impress her. They all know that it's just her job, but they all also know that they're all just human. Who's to say she might not just develop a special relationship with the best worker in the group?
In order to get the job at all she'd have to be fairly good looking, and almost certainly single and China already has a big gender gap.
This has nothing to do with sexism. It's a cold, calculated, move by management to turn up the pressure.
Rock the boat and lose a comparatively awesome job in the middle of a big recession while surrounded by a billion people who all cut off their left leg to have that job? I think not. I think she's going to be ecstatic and oh-so-very-happy-to-here thank you for the revolution, comrade.
Whether it's considered creepy or not is rather beside the point.
RMS is focused on the issue of freedom. It should be your choice whether, how, and when to reveal your location and data.
With freedom then you can control the creepiness or deal with it appropriately. Without freedom you're just stuck.
Because of the way radio works all towers and phones and radio receivers in range are already aware of all this and more. That's why RMS was pointing out the necessity of waiting until one gets to a safe location before advertising one's position.
Tin-foil-hat? I don't think so; not after the app that tracked women's locations and gave a map. There have been others as well.
Advocating for freedom for all is self serving? Please elaborate.
On the contrary, I found RMS to be extremely polite in his responses. Everything he said was 100% consistent and 100% focused on the good of all.
Is it impolite to point out that you'll die if you jump, with no parachute, from ten thousand feet?
Is it impolite to insist that in order to be safe everyone who ascends to ten thousand feet should have the benefit of a parachute?
Please don't associate me with advocacy of something "open". I have never used that term.[emphasis added]
I disagree with “open source”, of course. However, before that term was coined in 1998, the term "open software" was used to mean something else. It meant that users could choose from various components that could interoperate. I think that's the term this question refers to.
Unix was referred to as "open software", in that sense. However, although Unix was "open", it was not free software or even close to it. Being "open" meant that the user had (in theory) a choice between various proprietary programs -- but that's not freedom, that's only having the chance to choose your master. Being "open" was insufficient because what we need is "free". That's why I needed to write a free operating system, the GNU operating system, to replace Unix.
In other words, the AC you're responding to is correct both in the sense of what RMS would say and in the sense that writing your own alternative to systemd is the ethical choice if you don't like systemd.
Note that what is ethical is not the same as what is easy. Thank you, RMS, for being consistent and ethical!
Hurry, everyone prostrate yourselves and beg forgiveness for your eco-sins! Yes, flagellate yourselves to prove (that is, to show off) how sorry you are. Oh, and in case you're just too busy but are never the less still very very sorry for all the eco-sinning that you've done then we've calculated it all up and converted the proper amount of sorriness into dollars. Just pay this amount to the eco pope and we'll call it even.
Is it any wonder why folks think all this green/tree-hugging/self-righteous eco bullshit is too much like a scam or a bullshit religion even worse than scientology?
Even if there's any truth to global warming articles and bullshit like TFA do far more damage to the cause than any amount of rhetoric from established religions or counter evidence/claims from deniers.
For myself I'll believe it's a problem when it actually starts impacting daily life-- PAH! Two degrees Celsius. No, global warming / climate change / whatever-you-want-to-call-it-today-so-you-don't-look-asinine-in-a-year is a strategic ploy to get us off of foreign oil or just a self-righteous new religion at best; at worst it's a scam
In ECMAScript 5, one often represents concepts (think enum constants) via strings.
var COLOR_RED = 'RED';
var COLOR_ORANGE = 'ORANGE';
var COLOR_YELLOW = 'YELLOW';
var COLOR_GREEN = 'GREEN';
var COLOR_BLUE = 'BLUE';
var COLOR_VIOLET = 'VIOLET';
However, strings are not as unique as we’d like them to be.
(...)
Interestingly, even though we do so, there can still be mix-ups. For example, someone may define a constant for a mood:
var MOOD_BLUE = 'BLUE';
Now the value of BLUE is not unique anymore and MOOD_BLUE can be mistaken for it.
Symbols are a kludgey hack to try and reach this little thing called type safety which some people find to be really useful for y'know writing programs and libraries longer than "hello world".
(Take note of this, Atom, Vivaldi, and the rest who think that JS + CSS + HTML will magically make everything super fast, responsive, and a glorious nirvana of such awesome code that you've probably never heard of)
Tortoise Git is fantastic on Windows as well. Check out Rabbit VCS
Foobar2k --> Amarok (there's tons of other music players on Linux)
Traktor Pro --> Mixxx
Why not use LaTeX?
I forgot to mention: NP++ runs very well for me under WINE.
Have you considered Amarok to replace Foobar2000?
VS is definitely a very nice IDE for C++. It would be awesome to have in Linux especially to work on projects with Unreal 4.
I quote verbatim:
"All but one of the programs cited in her notes had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier. The exception was prepared by Babbage for her, although she did detect a 'bug' in it. Not only is there no evidence that Ada ever prepared a program for the Analytical Engine, but her correspondence with Babbage shows that she did not have the knowledge to do so."
I get that some women feel bad for a lack of contibution to computing but bold faced fabrication is only going to earn you the emnity of intelligent people, presumably of which computing would have a number.
and
This is one of their in-roads. Note all the five-dollar words and appeals to emotional wonderment.
Telling it how it is isn't the same as being an asshole or a misogynist.
Your self-righteous white knighting is disgusting and insulting to me. My wife feels the same as I do, by the way.