Sure. But they only have real power insofar as states agree to treat them as the ultimate authority. Which is very unlikely to be the case if they tried to implement such policies.
Imagine a scenario however where they reclaim an IP block from say Asia and then issue it to North America. Whatever ISP now has the IP block is probably going to change their BGP configuration to claim ownership. That will affect far more countries than just the one that now owns it, and I suspect that backbone providers not within the affected Asian country would go with whatever IANA says.
if UPU were to get too heavy-handed, the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits of a single standardized mail exchange system, and large players would simply withdraw.
It would be possible to withdraw from a mail system because ultimately it still remains possible to deliver letters with or without a central authority. However if you don't have a universal agreement on assigned names and numbers for the internet, the whole thing just doesn't work. For an example of what that would look like, look at what happened when Pakistan decided to blackhole youtube by poisoning the BGP route tables.
oh bullshit. "the rest of the world is scary" also bullshit. 198 countries in teh world, 150 of them have freedom and rules emulating the western concept of such.
And not every western country views freedom of speech the same way. The fact that you think otherwise tells me that you aren't terribly educated. For example, have you seen the GNAA spam on slashdot lately? In most western countries, that's considered a hate crime and can land you in jail. Not so in the US. In Germany, *any* speech or other symbolism about Nazisism can land you in jail (even so much as goosestepping, even if you're doing it as a joke, can get you in a LOT of trouble there.)
It's because of this that US is by far the most relaxed when it comes to free speech. This is a fact.
the fact our own government is actively seeking an internet kill switch is proof we cannot ourselves be trusted with sole control of it.
Are you really dumb enough to think an internet kill switch would work internationally? Even if the US government seized control of ICANN and began "killing" the internet that way, it wouldn't happen very fast at all. ICANN delegates IP address control to IANA, and IANA delegates IP addresses to the various RIRs (for example, the North American RIR is ARIN.) Even if the US government told IANA to "kill" the internet, first it would have to go to the RIRs and tell them that their IP addresses are all revoked. Assuming that the RIRs complied (and I really doubt they would) the RIRs would then have to tell all of the ISPs within their jurisdiction to change their BGP configuration. This whole process would take some time to pull off (probably a few days,) so it would totally defeat the intended purpose of a kill switch.
The absolute best the US government could do to kill the whole internet is suddenly tell all of the US based backbone providers to reconfigure BGP to claim ownership of all of the world's IP addresses (in other words, literally a global route poisoning,) but they don't need control of ICANN to do that. And even if this did happen, all that would be required is for non-US based backbone providers to simply kill their BGP peering neighbor relationships with US based backbone ISPs and the rest of the world would be up and running again, regardless of whether this "kill switch" was active.
Either way, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that ICANN is in any way useful as a kill switch. Can it be used destructively in the long term? Yes, absolutely, but that is a much different thing than a kill switch.
Besides, the idea of a kill switch was championed by the same idiot (Obama) who is championing giving up ICANN. He obviously hasn't thought either through very well, because if one were to kill internet access, even domestically, its consequences on the economy would be far more devastating than any terrorist attack that it's supposed to help prevent, which means that he would be doing groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda a favor since their primary goal of terror attacks is to damage the US economy.
That's the day the IPV6 transition actually happens. We don't have even IANA managing those - they don't need management because the supply exceeds the maximum theoretical demand a thousand times over.
That is incorrect, IANA delegates superblocks to RIRs just like with IPv4.
But the US only contribution to the core of the internet was Vint Cerf's internet protocol.
You misunderstand: That IS the internet. Anything else you might be referring to (like the world wide web) just runs on top of it, and the internet exists with or without it. Any other definition of "the internet" may as well include Facebook or Microsoft Internet Explorer because these things are equally relevant. You can argue that DNS and routing protocols like BGP are integral to its success, and you'd be correct, but those not only came way later, but are both optional and replaceable (in fact a replacement for BGP is already in the works.)
I still use Firefox simply for its hackability. One problem I keep running into though is that it's slow as hell on a lot of sites. For example, notice how slowly it zooms on Google maps compared to every other browser.
That's only because it never occurred to the MAFIAA to take the case to a US court. "This court has jurisdiction because all the good movies are made here, so anyone pirating movies is doing business with California" or something.
Just a thought, but perhaps it's for the best that ICANN gets handed over before Sweden gets an investor-state arbitration treaty with the US.
I think if they were able to do that, they would have already. They tried SOPA/PIPA afterall, and those would have been much worse because they'd even impact youtube, whereas going after ICANN wouldn't do anything to youtube.
They know that it's going to be very difficult to influence US law after what happened with SOPA, so now they're going after international law via treaty organizations. And, guess what we're handing ICANN over to?
However, in their favor, the adjustments to the alert system also are going to improve the geographical targetting, so that they will be more narrowly broadcast to just the areas affected
I kind of doubt that will make a difference for amber alerts. I think the idea is that the kidnapper can have driven a long ways away by the time the alert is made, so they will invariably make it blanket a large area. I still turn off the amber alerts though because every time I've had one happen, I've either been in bed or been in my office with no chance of hitting the road to be able to see the perpmobile speeding away.
I also turn off the severe weather alerts because we routinely get severe heat warnings (which I've received while riding my bike one time and I didn't feel hot at all) flash floods (if you're in an area affected by a flash flood, then the warning is already too late, and if you get stuck in one after the fact you're retarded and probably deserve to get a Darwin award) and dust storm warnings (honestly, who gives a fuck?)
I leave the extreme weather alerts on but have yet to ever get one, but I'm in Phoenix Arizona where there's basically no such thing as natural disasters.
ICANN includes IANA with it. IANA is the authority for IP address ownership. If you don't have an IP address, no amount of fucking with DNS will allow you to be reachable.
The status quo is such that the US government doesn't seize ownership of either domain names or IP addresses, except those that are registered or otherwise managed within its own jurisdiction. Sites that the US government really hates (thepiratebay for example) don't have a problem existing so long as their names and numbers aren't any of those delegated for use within the US. There hasn't been any indication at all that this will ever change.
If governance over the whole thing transfers elsewhere, there isn't any telling what new rules can be added. Examples could include international laws being enforced in ways that they've never previously been enforced, such as WIPO rules being applied to kill sites like thepiratebay.
You know they're going to make people hate it by crippling it and make them want to go back to the cable box. Examples of ways they can do that include preventing fast-forwarding commercials.
Personally I think it's a wasted effort. Right now we're witnessing capitalism do its thing as streaming services are gradually doing what the FCC already failed to do with cablecard over a decade ago. Pretty much the only people who give a shit about cable anymore are people who watch sports, but if you watch sports then you're already getting fucked from multiple angles (i.e. pay per screw, high per subscriber rates for ESPN and other sports channels, blackouts, etc) and I really doubt that a set top box rule is going to do you any favors.
I wouldn't say there's zero added benefit. Like it or not, this planet does have a yet to be determined expiration date. Sooner or later, we'll have to sort out the logistics of sending meatbags into space. Why not now, rather than wait until some kind of extinction event happens? And extinction events do happen.
Or the pirate sites could just relocate inside of tor, thus obviating the need for a CDN. Only way to DDoS a.onion site would mean DDoSing all of tor.
And given the US government hates a lot of the sites on tor and hasn't been particularly successful at killing the ones that it hates the most (only rarely succeeding) I think tor is a safe bet to escape from DMCA type laws.
In fact, tor was specifically designed to help people get away with breaking the laws of various countries.
You can call me whatever you want. Hell, you can even accuse me of being a tranny if you want to. I'm just setting the record straight. Whether or not you or anybody else believes me is inconsequential. And that is because of what I've been saying this entire time:
1. Repeating a lie many times and even getting a majority of people to agree with the lie doesn't make it true. 2. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true. 3. Repeatedly claiming something to be true, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be true, doesn't make it true.
Likewise, claiming you're a woman doesn't make that true either, even if you honestly believe that to be the case.
I've had a company I've worked for (contract work) as desktop support where I've complained loudly about atrocious security and nobody gave a shit. In fact, they had no plan in place at all for handling a breach, and there wasn't even somebody I could contact in the event of one, which I found out when we I noticed that we had a breach (and when I mentioned it to the system engineers, none of them seemed to care.) The only thing I could do was just let it go because the network engineers didn't want to add any kind of short term filtering as that would mean they would have to do some work, which was a thing they particularly hated doing.
I suspect that if I was a manager or otherwise in a position where I had power, I probably never would have been given the budget to address any of the security concerns.
As soon as the 90 days was up I just left and never looked back.
I already addressed the rest of your rant way back, you just ignored it, and as I mentioned I will not rehash it any further. But as for this one...
Maybe you should get your obese body out more. See the world as it really is. The fat has clogged your brain.
Actually I do 5 solid hours of instructor-led nonstop and very intense workout in the gym every week (it's included as part of the rent here,) in addition to a weekly bike ride that is no less than 12 miles, much of it on some steep trails in South Mountain. Sometimes my bike rides are as long as 70 miles if I feel like making it an all afternoon event. I even do it in 115 degree weather in the summer no less (though admittedly it's a dry heat.) Try doing that, Mr. Wildling!
Besides, if I was truly obese and unhealthy, I would be neither eligible nor listed for kidney transplant, as obesity is in fact one of the things that can make you ineligible, which I was ineligible at one point because I had edema which made my legs so huge that they added about 25lbs each worth of water, (it was awful, I couldn't even wear pants or shoes because my legs were THAT big) thus pushing my BMI high enough that I couldn't be listed.
But, 40mg of lasix per day for three weeks solved that problem and I got listed. And, in fact I even had the head transplant surgeon directly tell me that I'm one of the best pre-transplant candidates he's ever had, not only for my physical fitness, but for my knowledge on the subject as well.
I remember one of the Apollo astronauts (I want to say Neil Armstrong) said they probably only had a 50% chance of returning from the moon alive. That doesn't sound far different from the situation Musk describes for Mars. And, the motivation for Apollo was to prove that our capitalist democracy was better than Russia's communist oligarchy.
In light of that, I don't see any reason to think that Musk's plan is any worse or better than the Apollo program.
You still haven't answered the original question - what is so hard about referring to Chelsea Manning by her legal name?
I already answered it, several times in fact. Anyways I'll just leave this discussion at this point, as I found that I'm not the only one who finds talking to you totally pointless, and we'll let history be the judge, you senile old man.
I like how you constantly dodge the question of why you can't explain how you think that you aren't a bigot. I've directly asked you four times now. You're even worse than a politician.
I also like how you completely fail at the science behind this and dodge all of my questions calling attention to that fact.
And most of all, I like how I'm apparently not the only one who can see just how transparent you are:
The majority of the world agrees with me, including China, India, Muslim countries, and the West, not you. Suck it up, buttercup.
And you base this on absolutely nothing, and I say nothing because you've offered not a shred of evidence to show any numbers.
And again we have a loser! Again, you don't know what you're talking about. 50% of male-to-female transsexuals are straight, and as long as your birth certificate, passport, and all other documentation says female, what's the problem?
...And you completely missed the point.
And in India, which has a huge chunk of the world's population, I'm acceptable.
By law maybe, but I highly doubt you'd be able to walk around unscathed in most parts of India if they knew what you are. Ditto Iran.
Add the Muslim population, the Indian population, and Europe, and you've got a majority right there, even without counting New Zealand, Australia,
Again, this is based on nothing, and is in fact handwaving.
If these were IT positions, then I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them who were qualified on paper were rejected because their actual knowledge didn't reflect their written qualifications. That is, they might have braindumped their way through some vendor certifications, which would qualify them on paper, but doesn't necessarily mean they're knowledgeable. Braindumped IT certifications look far more legit than a degree from a diploma mill, and would probably fool a government entity who is auditing their screening process just based on paper qualifications (I'm guessing they probably didn't have recordings of the phone screenings.)
Besides, I'm having a really hard time believing that an IT shop would discriminate against Asians.
First of all, stop dodging the question already: What makes you believe that you are not a bigot, given you fit the literal definition of one?
I already gave the underlying biological cause of transsexuality plenty of times, both in this article and elsewhere.
And there it is again, the same explanation that can't explain FTM transexuality, nor can it explain cases like Sam Hashimi, and I'm sure it can't explain many others as well.
And yet, without any evidence of it, you declare that Bradley Manning has a female brain? And you wonder why I say you're kind of dumb, or if not that, naive. Furthermore, without any evidence, you seem to claim that this is the prevailing cause for MTF trans. Although I believe psychology is on the right track, people like you are exactly why it has so many critics.
Also, why is it my job to convince you
Nobody asked you to; the fact that you're on a moral crusade is your own business.
when the majority agrees with me?
What majority? I don't live in the same country as you, so surely you're talking about the whole world, in which case you're likely wrong as most of the world doesn't view things from a western perspective. And while it may be a prevailing western opinion, prevailing opinion doesn't mean the same thing as majority. Furthermore, I'm not just going to adopt an opinion just because it's a majority one. The majority western opinion is also that organic food is without a doubt better for you than conventional food, yet the science very clearly says otherwise (specifically, no evidence that it's better, some evidence that it may be worse.)
When the military, the courts,
If the courts said homosexuality was a crime, would they be correct?
and the majority of the population disagrees with you, you're the one with the burden of proof.
Speak of proof, prove that the majority population disagrees with me. Also prove to me that having a female brain represents the sole or even the majority cause of why a man wants to be a woman. These are things you keep claiming repeatedly without any evidence.
In fact, it's funny because I've already proven that, at least in a few respects, I know more about the science behind this than you do, namely how I mentioned that ftm trans can and do end up with male pattern baldness, as is triggered by testosterone, something which you promptly denied and were obviously wrong about.
Also I think what's the most telling is that in spite of the fact that you meet the textbook definition of a bigot, and I do not, you keep labeling me as one.
And yes, here purposefully and repeatedly misgendering someone (which is what you've been doing with Manning) is considered a crime.
I honestly don't care dude. Although Canadians always come to where I live (Phoenix) I really have no interest at all in going to Canada; in fact I really can't stand the cold and the closest I'd go to Canada is Alaska because I have a slight interest in climbing Denali. Just as much as I'm sure it's a crime to be a non-Muslim in Mecca, it really doesn't bother me as I have no interest in going there either.
Furthermore, this would be as absurd as me inviting you to any one of the 82 countries where homosexuality is illegal.
I'm probably going to be going against the grain here, but I think the entertainment industry is probably one place where age discrimination is reasonable.
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd... Unless the movie is supposed to be a comedy or something.
I'm sure Barbara Hudson will chime in and label me as hateful and bigoted, but what can you do.
Manning was diagnosed before al this. His CO knew about it and it wasn't an issue. It's no longer DADT - it's up to each commanding officer to handle it as they so choose. Of course you have a problem with that, because that doesn't fit your narrative. The diagnosis was made 16 years ago.
I'm still not hearing any evidence for an underlying cause, which still means that in fact you have no idea.
SRS isn't considered cosmetic surgery.
And yet it is, by your own admission, by definition a cosmetic surgery.
If it impacts your coordination, that's your problem. For many people, it doesn't. Of course, it also helps that, unlike you, I can use either hand for most tasks.
When firing a weapon, I can use both hands to a reasonable degree, but still it would be best if I could use my right hand, because when holding and steadying the weapon it takes precise coordination in more muscles than just those in your arm.
As for kidney donations, I've already offered. Turns out the patient was too sick to survive the surgery at the time, and I'm now past the age of donation. Go donate a kidney, then we'll talk.
I've had kidney disease for practically my entire adult life, which means I can't even be a living donor for other organs, like liver. I've been donating blood since I was a teenager however, and only recently stopped when it was advised that I have chronic anemia.
Also, while testosterone does make trans men grow a beard, it doesn't cause them hair loss.
I didn't say that it causes hair loss, rather that it does in most cases. And guess what:
So you're quite wrong here. And look at that, I seem to know the science of gender differences better than you do.
So much for "trashing my arguments."
The thing is, I haven't met any girls that aren't grossed out by it, nor am I somehow a repressed gay.
And what does ANY of this have to do with calling Manning by her legal name? If the military can do it, why can't you? Not man enough?
I've already explained this, and furthermore it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a man. Oh wait, but remember how you said that men are more likely to not accept that viewpoint? So you're very much contradicting yourself.
Come on up here and say it to my face and I'll have the cops on your ass in minutes. Here we have laws against hate speech. Not my fault that you're the only G8 country that has to catch up, same as in so many things.
Except nothing I've said can be considered hateful. You on the other hand have said plenty of hateful things against not only myself, but rednecks and Americans.
Oh what's that? Those aren't considered hateful because those aren't "protected" by your hate laws? How hypocritical, which is the first problem with "hate" laws. The second problem is that they can and do end up being abused to silence political speech. We're not behind in this regard at all, in fact I'd say we're rather ahead. People have the right to be assholes, the fact that you believe otherwise is why I call you an evil Mr Rogers:
Watch that movie if you haven't. Anyways, you're an asshole, just a self righteous one, and somehow that makes you think you're legitimate and I'm not. You're quite wrong though. In fact you are by all definitions a bigot.
Simple - you refuse to refer to someone by their legal name because of their birth sex. That's bigotry.
No, it's not bigotry. Again, let me quote the definition of bigotry:
Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Now explain to me, how are you NOT a bigot? You keep dodging this question and I'd like to hear your answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. But they only have real power insofar as states agree to treat them as the ultimate authority. Which is very unlikely to be the case if they tried to implement such policies.
Imagine a scenario however where they reclaim an IP block from say Asia and then issue it to North America. Whatever ISP now has the IP block is probably going to change their BGP configuration to claim ownership. That will affect far more countries than just the one that now owns it, and I suspect that backbone providers not within the affected Asian country would go with whatever IANA says.
if UPU were to get too heavy-handed, the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits of a single standardized mail exchange system, and large players would simply withdraw.
It would be possible to withdraw from a mail system because ultimately it still remains possible to deliver letters with or without a central authority. However if you don't have a universal agreement on assigned names and numbers for the internet, the whole thing just doesn't work. For an example of what that would look like, look at what happened when Pakistan decided to blackhole youtube by poisoning the BGP route tables.
https://www.cnet.com/news/how-...
This is true, however in principle IANA can reclaim an IP address from a RIR, who will then have to reclaim it from the ISP.
Have they ever done that? No.
Do they have a process for making such a request? No.
But the thing is: If governance changes hands, then the policies (and their actions) could very well change.
oh bullshit.
"the rest of the world is scary"
also bullshit.
198 countries in teh world, 150 of them have freedom and rules emulating the western concept of such.
And not every western country views freedom of speech the same way. The fact that you think otherwise tells me that you aren't terribly educated. For example, have you seen the GNAA spam on slashdot lately? In most western countries, that's considered a hate crime and can land you in jail. Not so in the US. In Germany, *any* speech or other symbolism about Nazisism can land you in jail (even so much as goosestepping, even if you're doing it as a joke, can get you in a LOT of trouble there.)
It's because of this that US is by far the most relaxed when it comes to free speech. This is a fact.
the fact our own government is actively seeking an internet kill switch is proof we cannot ourselves be trusted with sole control of it.
Are you really dumb enough to think an internet kill switch would work internationally? Even if the US government seized control of ICANN and began "killing" the internet that way, it wouldn't happen very fast at all. ICANN delegates IP address control to IANA, and IANA delegates IP addresses to the various RIRs (for example, the North American RIR is ARIN.) Even if the US government told IANA to "kill" the internet, first it would have to go to the RIRs and tell them that their IP addresses are all revoked. Assuming that the RIRs complied (and I really doubt they would) the RIRs would then have to tell all of the ISPs within their jurisdiction to change their BGP configuration. This whole process would take some time to pull off (probably a few days,) so it would totally defeat the intended purpose of a kill switch.
The absolute best the US government could do to kill the whole internet is suddenly tell all of the US based backbone providers to reconfigure BGP to claim ownership of all of the world's IP addresses (in other words, literally a global route poisoning,) but they don't need control of ICANN to do that. And even if this did happen, all that would be required is for non-US based backbone providers to simply kill their BGP peering neighbor relationships with US based backbone ISPs and the rest of the world would be up and running again, regardless of whether this "kill switch" was active.
Either way, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that ICANN is in any way useful as a kill switch. Can it be used destructively in the long term? Yes, absolutely, but that is a much different thing than a kill switch.
Besides, the idea of a kill switch was championed by the same idiot (Obama) who is championing giving up ICANN. He obviously hasn't thought either through very well, because if one were to kill internet access, even domestically, its consequences on the economy would be far more devastating than any terrorist attack that it's supposed to help prevent, which means that he would be doing groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda a favor since their primary goal of terror attacks is to damage the US economy.
That's the day the IPV6 transition actually happens. We don't have even IANA managing those - they don't need management because the supply exceeds the maximum theoretical demand a thousand times over.
That is incorrect, IANA delegates superblocks to RIRs just like with IPv4.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
This HAS to be done, or else it would literally be impossible to configure BGPv3 (and higher) to determine how to route traffic in the backbone.
But the US only contribution to the core of the internet was Vint Cerf's internet protocol.
You misunderstand: That IS the internet. Anything else you might be referring to (like the world wide web) just runs on top of it, and the internet exists with or without it. Any other definition of "the internet" may as well include Facebook or Microsoft Internet Explorer because these things are equally relevant. You can argue that DNS and routing protocols like BGP are integral to its success, and you'd be correct, but those not only came way later, but are both optional and replaceable (in fact a replacement for BGP is already in the works.)
I still use Firefox simply for its hackability. One problem I keep running into though is that it's slow as hell on a lot of sites. For example, notice how slowly it zooms on Google maps compared to every other browser.
The industry hasn't used miniusb in a long time.
That's only because it never occurred to the MAFIAA to take the case to a US court. "This court has jurisdiction because all the good movies are made here, so anyone pirating movies is doing business with California" or something.
Just a thought, but perhaps it's for the best that ICANN gets handed over before Sweden gets an investor-state arbitration treaty with the US.
I think if they were able to do that, they would have already. They tried SOPA/PIPA afterall, and those would have been much worse because they'd even impact youtube, whereas going after ICANN wouldn't do anything to youtube.
They know that it's going to be very difficult to influence US law after what happened with SOPA, so now they're going after international law via treaty organizations. And, guess what we're handing ICANN over to?
However, in their favor, the adjustments to the alert system also are going to improve the geographical targetting, so that they will be more narrowly broadcast to just the areas affected
I kind of doubt that will make a difference for amber alerts. I think the idea is that the kidnapper can have driven a long ways away by the time the alert is made, so they will invariably make it blanket a large area. I still turn off the amber alerts though because every time I've had one happen, I've either been in bed or been in my office with no chance of hitting the road to be able to see the perpmobile speeding away.
I also turn off the severe weather alerts because we routinely get severe heat warnings (which I've received while riding my bike one time and I didn't feel hot at all) flash floods (if you're in an area affected by a flash flood, then the warning is already too late, and if you get stuck in one after the fact you're retarded and probably deserve to get a Darwin award) and dust storm warnings (honestly, who gives a fuck?)
I leave the extreme weather alerts on but have yet to ever get one, but I'm in Phoenix Arizona where there's basically no such thing as natural disasters.
ICANN includes IANA with it. IANA is the authority for IP address ownership. If you don't have an IP address, no amount of fucking with DNS will allow you to be reachable.
The status quo is such that the US government doesn't seize ownership of either domain names or IP addresses, except those that are registered or otherwise managed within its own jurisdiction. Sites that the US government really hates (thepiratebay for example) don't have a problem existing so long as their names and numbers aren't any of those delegated for use within the US. There hasn't been any indication at all that this will ever change.
If governance over the whole thing transfers elsewhere, there isn't any telling what new rules can be added. Examples could include international laws being enforced in ways that they've never previously been enforced, such as WIPO rules being applied to kill sites like thepiratebay.
You know they're going to make people hate it by crippling it and make them want to go back to the cable box. Examples of ways they can do that include preventing fast-forwarding commercials.
Personally I think it's a wasted effort. Right now we're witnessing capitalism do its thing as streaming services are gradually doing what the FCC already failed to do with cablecard over a decade ago. Pretty much the only people who give a shit about cable anymore are people who watch sports, but if you watch sports then you're already getting fucked from multiple angles (i.e. pay per screw, high per subscriber rates for ESPN and other sports channels, blackouts, etc) and I really doubt that a set top box rule is going to do you any favors.
I wouldn't say there's zero added benefit. Like it or not, this planet does have a yet to be determined expiration date. Sooner or later, we'll have to sort out the logistics of sending meatbags into space. Why not now, rather than wait until some kind of extinction event happens? And extinction events do happen.
Or the pirate sites could just relocate inside of tor, thus obviating the need for a CDN. Only way to DDoS a .onion site would mean DDoSing all of tor.
And given the US government hates a lot of the sites on tor and hasn't been particularly successful at killing the ones that it hates the most (only rarely succeeding) I think tor is a safe bet to escape from DMCA type laws.
In fact, tor was specifically designed to help people get away with breaking the laws of various countries.
You already bragged about your workout routine.
No, I didn't.
You don't like being called an obese fat-head
You can call me whatever you want. Hell, you can even accuse me of being a tranny if you want to. I'm just setting the record straight. Whether or not you or anybody else believes me is inconsequential. And that is because of what I've been saying this entire time:
1. Repeating a lie many times and even getting a majority of people to agree with the lie doesn't make it true.
2. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true.
3. Repeatedly claiming something to be true, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be true, doesn't make it true.
Likewise, claiming you're a woman doesn't make that true either, even if you honestly believe that to be the case.
I've had a company I've worked for (contract work) as desktop support where I've complained loudly about atrocious security and nobody gave a shit. In fact, they had no plan in place at all for handling a breach, and there wasn't even somebody I could contact in the event of one, which I found out when we I noticed that we had a breach (and when I mentioned it to the system engineers, none of them seemed to care.) The only thing I could do was just let it go because the network engineers didn't want to add any kind of short term filtering as that would mean they would have to do some work, which was a thing they particularly hated doing.
I suspect that if I was a manager or otherwise in a position where I had power, I probably never would have been given the budget to address any of the security concerns.
As soon as the 90 days was up I just left and never looked back.
I already addressed the rest of your rant way back, you just ignored it, and as I mentioned I will not rehash it any further. But as for this one...
Maybe you should get your obese body out more. See the world as it really is. The fat has clogged your brain.
Actually I do 5 solid hours of instructor-led nonstop and very intense workout in the gym every week (it's included as part of the rent here,) in addition to a weekly bike ride that is no less than 12 miles, much of it on some steep trails in South Mountain. Sometimes my bike rides are as long as 70 miles if I feel like making it an all afternoon event. I even do it in 115 degree weather in the summer no less (though admittedly it's a dry heat.) Try doing that, Mr. Wildling!
Besides, if I was truly obese and unhealthy, I would be neither eligible nor listed for kidney transplant, as obesity is in fact one of the things that can make you ineligible, which I was ineligible at one point because I had edema which made my legs so huge that they added about 25lbs each worth of water, (it was awful, I couldn't even wear pants or shoes because my legs were THAT big) thus pushing my BMI high enough that I couldn't be listed.
But, 40mg of lasix per day for three weeks solved that problem and I got listed. And, in fact I even had the head transplant surgeon directly tell me that I'm one of the best pre-transplant candidates he's ever had, not only for my physical fitness, but for my knowledge on the subject as well.
I remember one of the Apollo astronauts (I want to say Neil Armstrong) said they probably only had a 50% chance of returning from the moon alive. That doesn't sound far different from the situation Musk describes for Mars. And, the motivation for Apollo was to prove that our capitalist democracy was better than Russia's communist oligarchy.
In light of that, I don't see any reason to think that Musk's plan is any worse or better than the Apollo program.
You still haven't answered the original question - what is so hard about referring to Chelsea Manning by her legal name?
I already answered it, several times in fact. Anyways I'll just leave this discussion at this point, as I found that I'm not the only one who finds talking to you totally pointless, and we'll let history be the judge, you senile old man.
Just don't tell them that the heart rate sensor and GPS aren't accurate enough to be useful.
I like how you constantly dodge the question of why you can't explain how you think that you aren't a bigot. I've directly asked you four times now. You're even worse than a politician.
I also like how you completely fail at the science behind this and dodge all of my questions calling attention to that fact.
And most of all, I like how I'm apparently not the only one who can see just how transparent you are:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The majority of the world agrees with me, including China, India, Muslim countries, and the West, not you. Suck it up, buttercup.
And you base this on absolutely nothing, and I say nothing because you've offered not a shred of evidence to show any numbers.
And again we have a loser! Again, you don't know what you're talking about. 50% of male-to-female transsexuals are straight, and as long as your birth certificate, passport, and all other documentation says female, what's the problem?
...And you completely missed the point.
And in India, which has a huge chunk of the world's population, I'm acceptable.
By law maybe, but I highly doubt you'd be able to walk around unscathed in most parts of India if they knew what you are. Ditto Iran.
Add the Muslim population, the Indian population, and Europe, and you've got a majority right there, even without counting New Zealand, Australia,
Again, this is based on nothing, and is in fact handwaving.
She just can't take it when people hold an opposing opinion. What a fucking intolerant cunt.
The proper term for that is a bigot, by definition. And Barbara is undeniably a bigot.
If these were IT positions, then I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them who were qualified on paper were rejected because their actual knowledge didn't reflect their written qualifications. That is, they might have braindumped their way through some vendor certifications, which would qualify them on paper, but doesn't necessarily mean they're knowledgeable. Braindumped IT certifications look far more legit than a degree from a diploma mill, and would probably fool a government entity who is auditing their screening process just based on paper qualifications (I'm guessing they probably didn't have recordings of the phone screenings.)
Besides, I'm having a really hard time believing that an IT shop would discriminate against Asians.
First of all, stop dodging the question already: What makes you believe that you are not a bigot, given you fit the literal definition of one?
I already gave the underlying biological cause of transsexuality plenty of times, both in this article and elsewhere.
And there it is again, the same explanation that can't explain FTM transexuality, nor can it explain cases like Sam Hashimi, and I'm sure it can't explain many others as well.
And yet, without any evidence of it, you declare that Bradley Manning has a female brain? And you wonder why I say you're kind of dumb, or if not that, naive. Furthermore, without any evidence, you seem to claim that this is the prevailing cause for MTF trans. Although I believe psychology is on the right track, people like you are exactly why it has so many critics.
Also, why is it my job to convince you
Nobody asked you to; the fact that you're on a moral crusade is your own business.
when the majority agrees with me?
What majority? I don't live in the same country as you, so surely you're talking about the whole world, in which case you're likely wrong as most of the world doesn't view things from a western perspective. And while it may be a prevailing western opinion, prevailing opinion doesn't mean the same thing as majority. Furthermore, I'm not just going to adopt an opinion just because it's a majority one. The majority western opinion is also that organic food is without a doubt better for you than conventional food, yet the science very clearly says otherwise (specifically, no evidence that it's better, some evidence that it may be worse.)
When the military, the courts,
If the courts said homosexuality was a crime, would they be correct?
and the majority of the population disagrees with you, you're the one with the burden of proof.
Speak of proof, prove that the majority population disagrees with me. Also prove to me that having a female brain represents the sole or even the majority cause of why a man wants to be a woman. These are things you keep claiming repeatedly without any evidence.
In fact, it's funny because I've already proven that, at least in a few respects, I know more about the science behind this than you do, namely how I mentioned that ftm trans can and do end up with male pattern baldness, as is triggered by testosterone, something which you promptly denied and were obviously wrong about.
Also I think what's the most telling is that in spite of the fact that you meet the textbook definition of a bigot, and I do not, you keep labeling me as one.
And yes, here purposefully and repeatedly misgendering someone (which is what you've been doing with Manning) is considered a crime.
I honestly don't care dude. Although Canadians always come to where I live (Phoenix) I really have no interest at all in going to Canada; in fact I really can't stand the cold and the closest I'd go to Canada is Alaska because I have a slight interest in climbing Denali. Just as much as I'm sure it's a crime to be a non-Muslim in Mecca, it really doesn't bother me as I have no interest in going there either.
Furthermore, this would be as absurd as me inviting you to any one of the 82 countries where homosexuality is illegal.
Honestly you're behaving like a 10 year old.
I'm probably going to be going against the grain here, but I think the entertainment industry is probably one place where age discrimination is reasonable.
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd... Unless the movie is supposed to be a comedy or something.
I'm sure Barbara Hudson will chime in and label me as hateful and bigoted, but what can you do.
Manning was diagnosed before al this. His CO knew about it and it wasn't an issue. It's no longer DADT - it's up to each commanding officer to handle it as they so choose. Of course you have a problem with that, because that doesn't fit your narrative. The diagnosis was made 16 years ago.
I'm still not hearing any evidence for an underlying cause, which still means that in fact you have no idea.
SRS isn't considered cosmetic surgery.
And yet it is, by your own admission, by definition a cosmetic surgery.
If it impacts your coordination, that's your problem. For many people, it doesn't. Of course, it also helps that, unlike you, I can use either hand for most tasks.
When firing a weapon, I can use both hands to a reasonable degree, but still it would be best if I could use my right hand, because when holding and steadying the weapon it takes precise coordination in more muscles than just those in your arm.
As for kidney donations, I've already offered. Turns out the patient was too sick to survive the surgery at the time, and I'm now past the age of donation. Go donate a kidney, then we'll talk.
I've had kidney disease for practically my entire adult life, which means I can't even be a living donor for other organs, like liver. I've been donating blood since I was a teenager however, and only recently stopped when it was advised that I have chronic anemia.
Also, while testosterone does make trans men grow a beard, it doesn't cause them hair loss.
I didn't say that it causes hair loss, rather that it does in most cases. And guess what:
http://www.ftmguide.org/hairlo...
So you're quite wrong here. And look at that, I seem to know the science of gender differences better than you do.
So much for "trashing my arguments."
The thing is, I haven't met any girls that aren't grossed out by it, nor am I somehow a repressed gay.
And what does ANY of this have to do with calling Manning by her legal name? If the military can do it, why can't you? Not man enough?
I've already explained this, and furthermore it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a man. Oh wait, but remember how you said that men are more likely to not accept that viewpoint? So you're very much contradicting yourself.
Come on up here and say it to my face and I'll have the cops on your ass in minutes. Here we have laws against hate speech. Not my fault that you're the only G8 country that has to catch up, same as in so many things.
Except nothing I've said can be considered hateful. You on the other hand have said plenty of hateful things against not only myself, but rednecks and Americans.
Oh what's that? Those aren't considered hateful because those aren't "protected" by your hate laws? How hypocritical, which is the first problem with "hate" laws. The second problem is that they can and do end up being abused to silence political speech. We're not behind in this regard at all, in fact I'd say we're rather ahead. People have the right to be assholes, the fact that you believe otherwise is why I call you an evil Mr Rogers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Watch that movie if you haven't. Anyways, you're an asshole, just a self righteous one, and somehow that makes you think you're legitimate and I'm not. You're quite wrong though. In fact you are by all definitions a bigot.
Simple - you refuse to refer to someone by their legal name because of their birth sex. That's bigotry.
No, it's not bigotry. Again, let me quote the definition of bigotry:
Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Now explain to me, how are you NOT a bigot? You keep dodging this question and I'd like to hear your answer.