True. That describes a small minority of the gender-queer community. Most members of that community have genitals that all of us would associate with one of the traditional sexes -- but not all of them, as you correctly state.
The GP has made the mistake, however, of mixing up sex and gender. Sex is determined by your genitals or your DNA or some physical characteristic. Gender is however you feel.
Agreed, that's exactly what I thought. If I am a bricklayer who works for a wall-building company, and I screw up a wall, I don't personally rebuild the wall at my own expense. The company I work for might do that, but that's the risk/reward of being an employer and merchant.
If I'm the owner of a software company and one of my employees writes software with flaws, and I profit from selling that software, then yeah I have a duty of merchantability to fix the flaws.
This isn't a terribly difficult concept. How could a college-educated professional programmer not spot the flaw in the analogy in 0.1 seconds?
If someone steals my cash, I lose the cash. That is zero security. If someone steals my credit card, they can try to make purchases, but the law protects me from having to pay for those unauthorized transactions. That is more than zero security.
The fact that the transaction can't be reversed is a negative for cash, and a positive for cards.
I like cash, personally, but not because of "security".
So, how does that compare to other forms of payment such as signature cards, debit cards, and cash? Signature cards have even lower security, debit cards have the same pin without the chip, and cash has no security at all.
I think it's a lot more likely that the title and preamble of the law are the opposite of what the law would actually do. Remember the "Clean Water Act" that made our water dirtier? Yeah, I bet it's like that.
But, sure, asking the EPA to release their science? It seems pretty good to me.
Yes, Newton believe in God and wanted the Bible to be right. So did Kepler, lo those many nights he spent trying to figure out the crystal solids. Darwin was a racist, too. Yes, all those things are true, and totally irrelevant. Your ancestors were murderers and rapists, because all of our ancestors were murders and rapists. And yet, just like today we have laws which criminalize murder and rape, today science has discarded the bad ideas of the past. Well, some of them, it's an ongoing process.
This is a poe, right? Creationism isn't science because it isn't falsifiable, period, end of question. It can't be science, ever, because "God did it" isn't a testable claim.
That doesn't mean creationism is wrong it just means that it isn't science.
Jeez, some mod had a pretty narrow understanding of what is on topic. Is it really "off topic" to discuss Slashdot in a news story about a news website started by the same man who started Slashdot?
I never really understood the beef with the American slant. It's an American website. It's read mostly by Americans, and has been since the day it launched. It covers international issues in somewhat approximate measure to the participation of international nerds, but it's never been a website which specifically attempted not to have an American slant. It is what it is and it has always been that.
What can you do? You can ignore them or try to explain why their arguments are nonsense -- just like we do with the much larger number of much better funded climate deniers whose rejection of science is much more profound and much more dangerous.
Fair enough. I'm a big-government tax-and-spend bleeding-heart redistribution-loving socialist liberal, so it's not how I would run the library system, or public science programs; but even more than I'm a socialist liberal, I'm a small-d democrat, and if the winners of the election want to "starve the beast", or shut down libraries, then tough titties for people like me.
I'm also an American. I don't know how Canada runs elections, but here we have plurality winners, so 37% can be enough to win.
Seriously. I've been reading since 1999 (under different accounts) and trust me, the editing was definitely even worse back then. We used to have mis-spelled words, broken links, and sentences the cut off in the mi
Alternate Headline: "Public Agency Finds Less Expensive Way to Do The Same Job; Saves Taxpayer Dollars".
This is what people voted for. It's a democracy. If people want the more expensive solution which does the same thing, then they'll vote for that instead.
Yep, that's the problem indeed. Justice is messy and revenge often escalates. We're better off with a cold government-run professional justice system than mob rule based on hot emotions and revenge motives. I agree. Nevertheless, fuck that guy who shot your brother, he got the justice that he deserved; and I wouldn't shed a tear if the murderer in this story had his throat slit by someone who caught him. That would be justice, in my opinion, even if it weren't optimal.
I agree. The keyboard is absolutely the worst aspect of the MacBook Pro. I have a recent iteration of the MBP and frankly Apple should be embarrassed. I also have a six-year-old MBP and the keyboard on that was much better, it was non-chiclet and the power key wasn't easily mis-pressed. That keyboard still left something to be desired, but the current Apple laptop keyboard is a mess.
All I want is keys laid out in columns like the Fingerworks or the Truly Ergonomic. That one change is minor, easy to adjust to, and afterwards greatly more comfortable.
Well that's not all I want. I also want it split and I want mechanical keys. I also want it backlit and I refuse to have a keyboard with a number pad. I guess there's a lot I want. I haven't found all those in one keyboard yet but today I'm happily using the Truly Ergonomic. I'm interested in the CODE 87-key keyboard but they are sold out. I recently bought a KeyCool 87 and it's pretty good but not columnar and not split.
If the family of a BTK victim could have found BTK and tortured him to death, then yes. Not that I'd really want that to be commonplace but in a situation like that, sure. Likewise I'm a proponent of bombing Hitler's bunker and I would have been a proponent of gassing Hussein. I have no problem with us killing Bin Laden even though he almost certainly posed no thread to the soldiers who did the deed. If that's all what you mean, then yeah I guess so, I'm a proponent of that.
Want some more hypotheticals? Say a murderer breaks through your front door and shoots your brother in the head right in front of you, then turns to flee back out the door. You take out a gun and shoot him *in the back* as he is running away from you. Am I a proponent of that? Again, not that I'd want everyone to run around seeking personal hot-emotion revenge, but yeah, I'd be glad you shot the guy in the back, even though he posed no threat to you. If I were on your jury, I'd vote against conviction, because fuck that guy.
The difference is scale. Revenge can be out of proportion causing situations to escalate. Society typically believes that a cold justice system delivers better-measured justice than hot personal revenge.
Slashdot Mirror
True. That describes a small minority of the gender-queer community. Most members of that community have genitals that all of us would associate with one of the traditional sexes -- but not all of them, as you correctly state.
The GP has made the mistake, however, of mixing up sex and gender. Sex is determined by your genitals or your DNA or some physical characteristic. Gender is however you feel.
Agreed, that's exactly what I thought. If I am a bricklayer who works for a wall-building company, and I screw up a wall, I don't personally rebuild the wall at my own expense. The company I work for might do that, but that's the risk/reward of being an employer and merchant.
If I'm the owner of a software company and one of my employees writes software with flaws, and I profit from selling that software, then yeah I have a duty of merchantability to fix the flaws.
This isn't a terribly difficult concept. How could a college-educated professional programmer not spot the flaw in the analogy in 0.1 seconds?
If someone steals my cash, I lose the cash. That is zero security. If someone steals my credit card, they can try to make purchases, but the law protects me from having to pay for those unauthorized transactions. That is more than zero security.
The fact that the transaction can't be reversed is a negative for cash, and a positive for cards.
I like cash, personally, but not because of "security".
So, how does that compare to other forms of payment such as signature cards, debit cards, and cash? Signature cards have even lower security, debit cards have the same pin without the chip, and cash has no security at all.
I agree. It really is very very bad. It could possibly be bad enough to cause me to stop coming here.
There's no such thing as proving anything. Any denier can always use special pleading to avoid conceding a fact.
I think it's a lot more likely that the title and preamble of the law are the opposite of what the law would actually do. Remember the "Clean Water Act" that made our water dirtier? Yeah, I bet it's like that.
But, sure, asking the EPA to release their science? It seems pretty good to me.
You're awesome. I love this thread.
Yes, Newton believe in God and wanted the Bible to be right. So did Kepler, lo those many nights he spent trying to figure out the crystal solids. Darwin was a racist, too. Yes, all those things are true, and totally irrelevant. Your ancestors were murderers and rapists, because all of our ancestors were murders and rapists. And yet, just like today we have laws which criminalize murder and rape, today science has discarded the bad ideas of the past. Well, some of them, it's an ongoing process.
This is a poe, right? Creationism isn't science because it isn't falsifiable, period, end of question. It can't be science, ever, because "God did it" isn't a testable claim.
That doesn't mean creationism is wrong it just means that it isn't science.
Like, a polar vortex?
Scott? Is that you? My friend Scott did the exact same thing in high school physics class.
I don't believe that you believe that and I don't feel like assisting your jest.
Jeez, some mod had a pretty narrow understanding of what is on topic. Is it really "off topic" to discuss Slashdot in a news story about a news website started by the same man who started Slashdot?
I never really understood the beef with the American slant. It's an American website. It's read mostly by Americans, and has been since the day it launched. It covers international issues in somewhat approximate measure to the participation of international nerds, but it's never been a website which specifically attempted not to have an American slant. It is what it is and it has always been that.
What can you do? You can ignore them or try to explain why their arguments are nonsense -- just like we do with the much larger number of much better funded climate deniers whose rejection of science is much more profound and much more dangerous.
Bad mod. +5, Insightful
Fair enough. I'm a big-government tax-and-spend bleeding-heart redistribution-loving socialist liberal, so it's not how I would run the library system, or public science programs; but even more than I'm a socialist liberal, I'm a small-d democrat, and if the winners of the election want to "starve the beast", or shut down libraries, then tough titties for people like me.
I'm also an American. I don't know how Canada runs elections, but here we have plurality winners, so 37% can be enough to win.
Seriously. I've been reading since 1999 (under different accounts) and trust me, the editing was definitely even worse back then. We used to have mis-spelled words, broken links, and sentences the cut off in the mi
Alternate Headline: "Public Agency Finds Less Expensive Way to Do The Same Job; Saves Taxpayer Dollars".
This is what people voted for. It's a democracy. If people want the more expensive solution which does the same thing, then they'll vote for that instead.
Yep, that's the problem indeed. Justice is messy and revenge often escalates. We're better off with a cold government-run professional justice system than mob rule based on hot emotions and revenge motives. I agree. Nevertheless, fuck that guy who shot your brother, he got the justice that he deserved; and I wouldn't shed a tear if the murderer in this story had his throat slit by someone who caught him. That would be justice, in my opinion, even if it weren't optimal.
I agree. The keyboard is absolutely the worst aspect of the MacBook Pro. I have a recent iteration of the MBP and frankly Apple should be embarrassed. I also have a six-year-old MBP and the keyboard on that was much better, it was non-chiclet and the power key wasn't easily mis-pressed. That keyboard still left something to be desired, but the current Apple laptop keyboard is a mess.
All I want is keys laid out in columns like the Fingerworks or the Truly Ergonomic. That one change is minor, easy to adjust to, and afterwards greatly more comfortable.
Well that's not all I want. I also want it split and I want mechanical keys. I also want it backlit and I refuse to have a keyboard with a number pad. I guess there's a lot I want. I haven't found all those in one keyboard yet but today I'm happily using the Truly Ergonomic. I'm interested in the CODE 87-key keyboard but they are sold out. I recently bought a KeyCool 87 and it's pretty good but not columnar and not split.
Only 5% of people have separate work and home computers? You think? I don't know I think it might be higher than that.
If the family of a BTK victim could have found BTK and tortured him to death, then yes. Not that I'd really want that to be commonplace but in a situation like that, sure. Likewise I'm a proponent of bombing Hitler's bunker and I would have been a proponent of gassing Hussein. I have no problem with us killing Bin Laden even though he almost certainly posed no thread to the soldiers who did the deed. If that's all what you mean, then yeah I guess so, I'm a proponent of that.
Want some more hypotheticals? Say a murderer breaks through your front door and shoots your brother in the head right in front of you, then turns to flee back out the door. You take out a gun and shoot him *in the back* as he is running away from you. Am I a proponent of that? Again, not that I'd want everyone to run around seeking personal hot-emotion revenge, but yeah, I'd be glad you shot the guy in the back, even though he posed no threat to you. If I were on your jury, I'd vote against conviction, because fuck that guy.
The difference is scale. Revenge can be out of proportion causing situations to escalate. Society typically believes that a cold justice system delivers better-measured justice than hot personal revenge.