Are you saying that if they were overwhelmingly female that they would appreciate MATLAB more?
Possibly, since women are much more likely to be math majors than comp sci majors and nearly anyone who studies math learns MATLAB.
The gender doesn't matter, it's the experience level. These guys are hipsters, and quite literally, the tool is older than they are. Further more, I'm sure they're a lot of people who combine their dislike for math with MATLAB itself...
Give me a break, it's not hard to date American campgrounds. The whole damn country is less than 250 years old. You guys act like we're carbon dating shit here.
We AREcarbondating things on this side of the pond. American history goes back WAY before Columbus wandered across the Atlantic.
The United States as a nation-state may not go back quite as far as some European countries but only a racist idiot would think that history is just the documented history of white people of European heritage. People have been in the Americas for 20,000+ years. And the United Kingdom as we know it today is barely older than the USA so don't get so high and might about how deep European history is.
But this article specifically mentions beer tabs, which just turned 50 years old, and have nothing to do with the Native Americans. Unless I'm missing something here...
I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public. Many, especially those of us from the west, often wonder why people from Russia are so guarded. You want to know why? Because the alternative is rotting in jail, or even being assassinated. What this idiotic, moronic, IGNORANT author proposes is a complete regression of 300 years of progress towards a free society, and not just in America. If he can't stand people being impolite, then very well - I expect him to thank me when he is inside a gulag for going to a gay rights meeting, just as he had to thank me when I hauled off his grandmother for being related to him (she's equally guilty by being in his immediate family). THAT is the society he will live in, but at least he'll never half to bear the terrible injustice of someone calling him an idiot. And now I think I know why he's called that.
If they each ran the same path, they overcame the same obstacles.
That's the point: It was never the same track. Never the same obstacles.
You've been playing the game on its easiest setting all this time and you think you're elite. That's the meaning of the word, "privilege".
Then clearly it wasn't the same track, and you were lying in your example. Anyway. If we take that then, are you saying I should declare one the winner because he fell down and skinned his knee? No, I won't. We've all had bad experiences at some time or another; I remember back when I was new at my job, I was passed over for another candidate because I didn't count for diversity. Likewise, I remember a good friend of mine almost lose a promotion to me, precisely because he did count for diversity (not until I threatened to leave otherwise).
The fact that you would just assume some of us got screwed while others didn't, all because of our skin color or gender, is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly arbitrary (by BOTH definitions, quite a feat). And even if by some miracle you got lucky, who are you to say? If one racer broke their arm at age 6 and the other didn't, does that mean they should get a two minute head start?
In short, no, I don't agree. You are trying to kill a weed with fertilizer. You want to know what would REALLY fix this? Don't let the recruitment people see what gender or skin color the applicant is. Problem solved.
Maybe the other stalls werent empty like the person who 'caught' him is claiming. Maybe they are the ones who set him up. Its how I would do it.
IDK, just playing devils advocate...but that is why innocent until proven guilty SHOULD be the way it is in all courts - even the court of public opinion. Of course most people are too stupid to think for themselves - as Honey BooBoo and Kim K's popularity prove - so it probably is just a pipe dream.
There's nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate, and indeed I always try to look at situations from both points of view. But just look at it: you really have to stretch to make a case for this guy. The odds of him always going to the same stall, after every five moves (assuming there are only three bathroom stalls), is about 1/59049. Further more, how would the person framing him know what stall he was going to pick, and hide the phone accordingly? Why would it be fairly well hidden if they were trying to set him up? There are way too many coincidences here. Like I said, the guy can always prove himself without it if he really wants to, but somehow I doubt he will take them up on that offer.
My plan is coming together nicely. Now with him out of the way, nobody can beat me.
Seriously, if I was going to set someone up, this is likely how I would do it. Its sort of like a cop throwing a weapon on the guy he just shot.
What they should have done was turned the sound up and watch for him to go in then listen from the next stall. If they heard the phone, call the number and ask him to step out of the stall.
If he was setup, why would he conveniently always go to THAT stall? Why would he need to go to the bathroom so incredibly frequently? Why would it be hidden somewhat well? How did someone get ahold of his phone and he didn't notice for so long? It doesn't add up. I'm normally much more interested in facts than coincidences, but this is way too suspicious even for me. I wonder what happens if he plays while they hold onto his phone for the match...
Now you're getting warmer, but the number of victories is only part of the story. The bigger part is the degree of difficulty. That's what you seem unable to understand. It's not just red shirt/green shirt.
I thought you said they completed the same track? If they each ran the same path, they overcame the same obstacles. Bravo to both! It'd be an insult to both to pick a winner based on outwards appearances.
Only a liberal would try to correct the syntax of posts on the internet. Not to mention, there does not appear to be an edit option. Oh well. Use your great knowledge of grammar and syntax to vanquish your foes.
Except that your mistakes make it impossible to figure out what you actually meant. And if you think being able to communicate clearly is a "liberal" idea...
Two equal candidates, but one who overcame greater adversity to reach that point, suggesting they have greater inherent potential.
Say two people finish a race in a tie, but one was carrying a heavily loaded backpack - wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they were actually the better runner?
That's a terrible analogy. An accurate one is two runners - one with a red shirt, the other with a green one. Since red is an energizing, aggressive color, the green shirt must obviously be better because they wore a shirt that relaxed them. Right?
Nonsense. I'd assume the better one is the one with more victories on their record, not because of what shirt they wore.
I'm not sure that answers the question.
If two people have the exact same accomplishments, except one is from sex/race subjected to discrimination, then isn't there a good chance that the disadvantaged person would have done more if not subjected to said disadvantage? Doesn't that in fact make the disadvantaged person the "better" candidate?
No, it wouldn't. You'd have two equal candidates. Who you pick should come down to either a fair chance of some kind (a coin flip, dice roll, whatever), or you should give them an opportunity to compete to demonstrate better real life skills. Preferably, interview both and then make your judgements after getting to know them. Maybe I'm lacking in "moral flexibility", as you'd put it, but I'm not on board with sexism or racism of any kind, and I'm not going to screw over an applicant because of their skin color or gender. And even for you, think about it: you're here to judge applicants, not fulfil some higher order. If you're letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement, than I consider that a failure no matter how justified you think your final goal is.
They knew the guy was dangerous. He already committed a crime by making threats like that. Instead of stopping it then and there, they set up a sting operation where his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack. The FBI provided proof of this themselves. Colluding with a dangerous nutjob would be "egging him on," and I don't care how much a shill like you wants to cry otherwise.
Never once have I ever said he wasn't dangerous. That was entirely your own assertion, and I don't much appreciate you putting words in my mouth and then hounding me for things I never even alluded to.
What is your evidence that he is mentally ill instead of willing to engage in attacks that are consistent with his values and like those that occur around the world on a daily basis?
This just goes to show how much you like to distort reality. If someone openly stated they want to become a martyr and hurt or kill a lot of people, they are mentally ill, whether they intend to carry it out or not. That's not open to debate.
But hey, lets recap: you're saying you are totally fine with ignoring crazy people and supporting their fake terror attacks (which only benefit the government). It would be too hard to simply put these people in a mental hospital instead of leaving them out on the street and encouraging them to plot against innocent civilians, right?
The worst thing is, when (not if) one of these sing operations go wrong, the FBI is going to pretend they had no involvement in it, and since they are with the government, you'll never be able to prove otherwise.
If anyone who would kill themselves to take out what they perceive to be an enemy is mentally insane, does that extend to soldiers in war? I agree with Cold here; whether or not what the FBI did was justified, at least they did their job for once. The best way to get him help might very well be through the prison system, if his lawyer can get him to plead insanity.
However, even if he gets stuck in prison, I can't say I'm against that decision. It's unfortunate, but he is clearly willing to kill innocent bystanders to fulfil some crazy goal. Does that not make him a threat to our general society? And isn't the whole point of the criminal system to protect the public? Either he goes to an asylum or he goes to the prison system; whatever happens, I don't think it's in society's best interest to let him walk on the streets, and the fact that nobody died here should be applauded. If instead we read a news story two weeks from now about this psycho blowing himself up, would you be saying that the FBI failed?
Unless you're kid truly displays a passion for it, I would not advise pushing him onto it. It's very likely that it'll overwhelm him, and then he'll never want to touch it again. If you are dead set on doing something like that, I would recommend starting with a LOGO implementation: those are usually pretty easy for most kids to handle, and indeed I got my start with it.
But seriously, playing Minecraft and Robolox != enjoying programming. If anything, it shows that he likes building things, but that does not mean he is a programmer. Give him small and short steps, if at all; if you force this on him, he is going to hate it for the rest of his life. And if programming doesn't work out for him (and I highly suspect it might not), try giving him something practical or more physical; building models sounds like something he would enjoy, and LEGO's (if he doesn't have them already) would probably interest him.
Do keep in mind, he might be playing Robolox and Minecraft for the social element behind them. It's very well possible he's playing them to make things, but a bunch of kids I've seen play it do so because it's an activity to do together, and I don't know they'd do it alone. Obviously, you are going to have to make that decision and I can't, but it's something to keep in mind.
I don't mean to sound scary or anything, but you really want to make sure this is something your kid enjoys before exposing him to the full brunt of it. If he doesn't have a natural liking for it, it's going to be very stressful for the both of you. A lot like if your father ever made you play sports when you were younger - make sure gently stroking his interest does not turn to squashing it.
Whatever happens, just keep an open mind and be sure he knows he can say what he wants. I wish nothing but the best of luck for you and your son!
If this thread is like all the others then we'll get a lot of posts along the lines of how kids shouldn't be taught CS, how if they're not self motivated to find it for themselves then they shouldn't learn it.
If you believe that, can you explain what about CS is different from maths, English, physics, chemistry, biology, foreign languages, history, wood working, underwater basket weaving etc etc?
Seriously, I'm not being snarky. This comes up a lot, and I'd like to know why people think this.
Programming is a highly specialized discipline that takes years of practice to do well. Most people never have any use for it at all, and before I am told that we use it everyday, keep in mind that (presumably) we all have jobs involving it and are therefore biased. On top of that, these reforms are pushing it for not only middle school, but even elementary school. We're not going to get a utopian society were everyone knows how to program.
Instead, we're going to get a scenario where all these kids are frustrated, unable to grasp it so early, and therefore never going to touch it again. Teachers won't know how to teach something they don't understand, parents will be annoyed by their inability to help their children, and nobody is ever going to gain any benefit from this. The people who introduced it will be accused of wasting time and money, and all of us (not just the ones who pushed in the law) are going to be looked down upon by society as hopelessly naive and short sighted. THAT's my main annoyance with these proposals, as I am now going to be associated with other people's mistakes, and nobody benefits. Hell, even Microsoft and Google don't get anything - they offshore and automate so much of their work that they really don't need more employees. I don't think they're pushing this for those, but rather the public perception of creating jobs, as well as brand familiarity...
Its popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women.
I find it disgusting that the author wouldn't stop revenge porn because it's an immoral or criminal act, but only because most of the affected audience happens to be women. Are you next going to suggest that we don't run public transportation because it is a highly efficient method of travel that is cheaper for everyone involved, but only because non-white people are less likely to own a car?
vi a link to vim ?
I haven't used plain old vi in a long time.
The operating system I use actually does ship with an implementation of a very old version of vi. I don't use it (I use vim), but I do know for a fact that it supports the backspace key, along with a bunch of stuff nano doesn't.
Clarification: I don't have a problem at all with nano, but I do with people who say it's stupid that I want more from a text editor than search-and-replace. Also, binding all those shortcuts to the control key has got to wear on your pinky after a while...
Are you kidding? No self respecting neckbeard would be caught dead using Nano. It's too simple and straightforward for them. Their editor needs to have an interactive and non interactive mode and no use of the delete or backspace key. I mean keyboards have had that function for like a half century now...
Yeah, no one but those mythical "neckbeards" could ever possibly want such advanced features as... being able to customize it. Or auto completion. Or hell, even code folding. I mean, Nano's biggest boast it that they have syntax highlighting and find-and-replace. Some people need a bit more from their editor then that. Oh, and VI does support the backspace key. In fact, it has for about 20+ years now.
If you have never experienced the clear, exacting system of thought in physics, mathematics or chemistry, you will always be an IDIOT who can be sold ANYTHING. You will be completely at the mercy of the person selling you some shit or some truth or a mix of both.
Clear thinking is based on standing of the shoulders of great scientists, not by standing on the shoulders of some AgitProp faggots and their paymasters in finance.
Physics and math would do nothing for that. Logic, on the other hand, would.
You're not making any sense. I expected more than just redditors on slashdot.
If you don't see how intentionally creating a situation that is possible (maybe even likely) to result in someone's death is wrong, than I am very glad I do not know you as a person. Then again, since you presume to think I spend time on reddit just because I asked you a question (a conclusion that is both incorrect and not logically reached), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if rational thought is difficult for you.
An inanimate object? Take some time to think of a cogent analogy.
What's the difference? The police is a tool that is used to enforce the law on behalf of the people (in theory, anyway). A gun is used to enforce your will as well; if you tell the gun to shoot, do you want it deciding that it doesn't agree with you?
Besides, you're avoiding my question; if, by your direct action and knowledge, you order someone's potential death, does that not make you as responsible as the people carrying it out?
Slashdot Mirror
C# and Java also solve the leaky memory problem and are much more popular.
But not at compile time, and you can't use them in systems' programming on general hardware.
Are you saying that if they were overwhelmingly female that they would appreciate MATLAB more?
Possibly, since women are much more likely to be math majors than comp sci majors and nearly anyone who studies math learns MATLAB.
The gender doesn't matter, it's the experience level. These guys are hipsters, and quite literally, the tool is older than they are. Further more, I'm sure they're a lot of people who combine their dislike for math with MATLAB itself...
Give me a break, it's not hard to date American campgrounds. The whole damn country is less than 250 years old. You guys act like we're carbon dating shit here.
We ARE carbon dating things on this side of the pond. American history goes back WAY before Columbus wandered across the Atlantic.
The United States as a nation-state may not go back quite as far as some European countries but only a racist idiot would think that history is just the documented history of white people of European heritage. People have been in the Americas for 20,000+ years. And the United Kingdom as we know it today is barely older than the USA so don't get so high and might about how deep European history is.
But this article specifically mentions beer tabs, which just turned 50 years old, and have nothing to do with the Native Americans. Unless I'm missing something here...
I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public. Many, especially those of us from the west, often wonder why people from Russia are so guarded. You want to know why? Because the alternative is rotting in jail, or even being assassinated. What this idiotic, moronic , IGNORANT author proposes is a complete regression of 300 years of progress towards a free society, and not just in America. If he can't stand people being impolite, then very well - I expect him to thank me when he is inside a gulag for going to a gay rights meeting, just as he had to thank me when I hauled off his grandmother for being related to him (she's equally guilty by being in his immediate family). THAT is the society he will live in, but at least he'll never half to bear the terrible injustice of someone calling him an idiot. And now I think I know why he's called that.
That's the point: It was never the same track. Never the same obstacles.
You've been playing the game on its easiest setting all this time and you think you're elite. That's the meaning of the word, "privilege".
Then clearly it wasn't the same track, and you were lying in your example. Anyway. If we take that then, are you saying I should declare one the winner because he fell down and skinned his knee? No, I won't. We've all had bad experiences at some time or another; I remember back when I was new at my job, I was passed over for another candidate because I didn't count for diversity. Likewise, I remember a good friend of mine almost lose a promotion to me, precisely because he did count for diversity (not until I threatened to leave otherwise).
The fact that you would just assume some of us got screwed while others didn't, all because of our skin color or gender, is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly arbitrary (by BOTH definitions, quite a feat). And even if by some miracle you got lucky, who are you to say? If one racer broke their arm at age 6 and the other didn't, does that mean they should get a two minute head start?
In short, no, I don't agree. You are trying to kill a weed with fertilizer. You want to know what would REALLY fix this? Don't let the recruitment people see what gender or skin color the applicant is. Problem solved.
Maybe the other stalls werent empty like the person who 'caught' him is claiming. Maybe they are the ones who set him up. Its how I would do it. IDK, just playing devils advocate...but that is why innocent until proven guilty SHOULD be the way it is in all courts - even the court of public opinion. Of course most people are too stupid to think for themselves - as Honey BooBoo and Kim K's popularity prove - so it probably is just a pipe dream.
There's nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate, and indeed I always try to look at situations from both points of view. But just look at it: you really have to stretch to make a case for this guy. The odds of him always going to the same stall, after every five moves (assuming there are only three bathroom stalls), is about 1/59049. Further more, how would the person framing him know what stall he was going to pick, and hide the phone accordingly? Why would it be fairly well hidden if they were trying to set him up? There are way too many coincidences here. Like I said, the guy can always prove himself without it if he really wants to, but somehow I doubt he will take them up on that offer.
My plan is coming together nicely. Now with him out of the way, nobody can beat me.
Seriously, if I was going to set someone up, this is likely how I would do it. Its sort of like a cop throwing a weapon on the guy he just shot.
What they should have done was turned the sound up and watch for him to go in then listen from the next stall. If they heard the phone, call the number and ask him to step out of the stall.
If he was setup, why would he conveniently always go to THAT stall? Why would he need to go to the bathroom so incredibly frequently? Why would it be hidden somewhat well? How did someone get ahold of his phone and he didn't notice for so long? It doesn't add up. I'm normally much more interested in facts than coincidences, but this is way too suspicious even for me. I wonder what happens if he plays while they hold onto his phone for the match...
That is painfully stupid.
That's what I've been saying all this time.
Now you're getting warmer, but the number of victories is only part of the story. The bigger part is the degree of difficulty. That's what you seem unable to understand. It's not just red shirt/green shirt.
I thought you said they completed the same track? If they each ran the same path, they overcame the same obstacles. Bravo to both! It'd be an insult to both to pick a winner based on outwards appearances.
Only a liberal would try to correct the syntax of posts on the internet. Not to mention, there does not appear to be an edit option. Oh well. Use your great knowledge of grammar and syntax to vanquish your foes.
Except that your mistakes make it impossible to figure out what you actually meant. And if you think being able to communicate clearly is a "liberal" idea...
Two equal candidates, but one who overcame greater adversity to reach that point, suggesting they have greater inherent potential.
Say two people finish a race in a tie, but one was carrying a heavily loaded backpack - wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they were actually the better runner?
That's a terrible analogy. An accurate one is two runners - one with a red shirt, the other with a green one. Since red is an energizing, aggressive color, the green shirt must obviously be better because they wore a shirt that relaxed them. Right?
Nonsense. I'd assume the better one is the one with more victories on their record, not because of what shirt they wore.
I'm not sure that answers the question. If two people have the exact same accomplishments, except one is from sex/race subjected to discrimination, then isn't there a good chance that the disadvantaged person would have done more if not subjected to said disadvantage? Doesn't that in fact make the disadvantaged person the "better" candidate?
No, it wouldn't. You'd have two equal candidates. Who you pick should come down to either a fair chance of some kind (a coin flip, dice roll, whatever), or you should give them an opportunity to compete to demonstrate better real life skills. Preferably, interview both and then make your judgements after getting to know them. Maybe I'm lacking in "moral flexibility", as you'd put it, but I'm not on board with sexism or racism of any kind, and I'm not going to screw over an applicant because of their skin color or gender. And even for you, think about it: you're here to judge applicants, not fulfil some higher order. If you're letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement, than I consider that a failure no matter how justified you think your final goal is.
I've been pushing my daughter in STEM and she's about to transition from HS to college.
If this keeps up, I can look forward to her not having to move home after college graduation!
Did she actually want to do STEM? You sound like you've decided her career for her.
Linux has been obsolete since introducing assembly code. Minux touches the hardware in just 100 lines of code and macosx is a micro kernel as well.
It is 2015 and not 1985
Better not use Minix then, because it also has assembly.
I'm doing no such thing. Typical cold fjord. Read here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... and the OP.
They knew the guy was dangerous. He already committed a crime by making threats like that. Instead of stopping it then and there, they set up a sting operation where his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack. The FBI provided proof of this themselves. Colluding with a dangerous nutjob would be "egging him on," and I don't care how much a shill like you wants to cry otherwise.
Never once have I ever said he wasn't dangerous. That was entirely your own assertion, and I don't much appreciate you putting words in my mouth and then hounding me for things I never even alluded to.
What is your evidence that he is mentally ill instead of willing to engage in attacks that are consistent with his values and like those that occur around the world on a daily basis?
This just goes to show how much you like to distort reality. If someone openly stated they want to become a martyr and hurt or kill a lot of people, they are mentally ill, whether they intend to carry it out or not. That's not open to debate.
But hey, lets recap: you're saying you are totally fine with ignoring crazy people and supporting their fake terror attacks (which only benefit the government). It would be too hard to simply put these people in a mental hospital instead of leaving them out on the street and encouraging them to plot against innocent civilians, right?
The worst thing is, when (not if) one of these sing operations go wrong, the FBI is going to pretend they had no involvement in it, and since they are with the government, you'll never be able to prove otherwise.
If anyone who would kill themselves to take out what they perceive to be an enemy is mentally insane, does that extend to soldiers in war? I agree with Cold here; whether or not what the FBI did was justified, at least they did their job for once. The best way to get him help might very well be through the prison system, if his lawyer can get him to plead insanity.
However, even if he gets stuck in prison, I can't say I'm against that decision. It's unfortunate, but he is clearly willing to kill innocent bystanders to fulfil some crazy goal. Does that not make him a threat to our general society? And isn't the whole point of the criminal system to protect the public? Either he goes to an asylum or he goes to the prison system; whatever happens, I don't think it's in society's best interest to let him walk on the streets, and the fact that nobody died here should be applauded. If instead we read a news story two weeks from now about this psycho blowing himself up, would you be saying that the FBI failed?
Unless you're kid truly displays a passion for it, I would not advise pushing him onto it. It's very likely that it'll overwhelm him, and then he'll never want to touch it again. If you are dead set on doing something like that, I would recommend starting with a LOGO implementation: those are usually pretty easy for most kids to handle, and indeed I got my start with it.
But seriously, playing Minecraft and Robolox != enjoying programming. If anything, it shows that he likes building things, but that does not mean he is a programmer. Give him small and short steps, if at all; if you force this on him, he is going to hate it for the rest of his life. And if programming doesn't work out for him (and I highly suspect it might not), try giving him something practical or more physical; building models sounds like something he would enjoy, and LEGO's (if he doesn't have them already) would probably interest him.
Do keep in mind, he might be playing Robolox and Minecraft for the social element behind them. It's very well possible he's playing them to make things, but a bunch of kids I've seen play it do so because it's an activity to do together, and I don't know they'd do it alone. Obviously, you are going to have to make that decision and I can't, but it's something to keep in mind.
I don't mean to sound scary or anything, but you really want to make sure this is something your kid enjoys before exposing him to the full brunt of it. If he doesn't have a natural liking for it, it's going to be very stressful for the both of you. A lot like if your father ever made you play sports when you were younger - make sure gently stroking his interest does not turn to squashing it.
Whatever happens, just keep an open mind and be sure he knows he can say what he wants. I wish nothing but the best of luck for you and your son!
If this thread is like all the others then we'll get a lot of posts along the lines of how kids shouldn't be taught CS, how if they're not self motivated to find it for themselves then they shouldn't learn it.
If you believe that, can you explain what about CS is different from maths, English, physics, chemistry, biology, foreign languages, history, wood working, underwater basket weaving etc etc?
Seriously, I'm not being snarky. This comes up a lot, and I'd like to know why people think this.
Programming is a highly specialized discipline that takes years of practice to do well. Most people never have any use for it at all, and before I am told that we use it everyday, keep in mind that (presumably) we all have jobs involving it and are therefore biased. On top of that, these reforms are pushing it for not only middle school, but even elementary school. We're not going to get a utopian society were everyone knows how to program.
Instead, we're going to get a scenario where all these kids are frustrated, unable to grasp it so early, and therefore never going to touch it again. Teachers won't know how to teach something they don't understand, parents will be annoyed by their inability to help their children, and nobody is ever going to gain any benefit from this. The people who introduced it will be accused of wasting time and money, and all of us (not just the ones who pushed in the law) are going to be looked down upon by society as hopelessly naive and short sighted. THAT's my main annoyance with these proposals, as I am now going to be associated with other people's mistakes, and nobody benefits. Hell, even Microsoft and Google don't get anything - they offshore and automate so much of their work that they really don't need more employees. I don't think they're pushing this for those, but rather the public perception of creating jobs, as well as brand familiarity...
Its popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women.
I find it disgusting that the author wouldn't stop revenge porn because it's an immoral or criminal act, but only because most of the affected audience happens to be women. Are you next going to suggest that we don't run public transportation because it is a highly efficient method of travel that is cheaper for everyone involved, but only because non-white people are less likely to own a car?
What an incredibly sexist implication.
Come on Stallman, no shame in posting under a name.
systemd will get an integrated text editor with emacs, vi and nano emulation modes...
But didn't they actually consider that a while ago? Some kind of integrated editor for service files or such?
vi a link to vim ? I haven't used plain old vi in a long time.
The operating system I use actually does ship with an implementation of a very old version of vi. I don't use it (I use vim), but I do know for a fact that it supports the backspace key, along with a bunch of stuff nano doesn't.
Clarification: I don't have a problem at all with nano, but I do with people who say it's stupid that I want more from a text editor than search-and-replace. Also, binding all those shortcuts to the control key has got to wear on your pinky after a while...
Are you kidding? No self respecting neckbeard would be caught dead using Nano. It's too simple and straightforward for them. Their editor needs to have an interactive and non interactive mode and no use of the delete or backspace key. I mean keyboards have had that function for like a half century now...
Yeah, no one but those mythical "neckbeards" could ever possibly want such advanced features as... being able to customize it. Or auto completion. Or hell, even code folding. I mean, Nano's biggest boast it that they have syntax highlighting and find-and-replace. Some people need a bit more from their editor then that. Oh, and VI does support the backspace key. In fact, it has for about 20+ years now.
If you have never experienced the clear, exacting system of thought in physics, mathematics or chemistry, you will always be an IDIOT who can be sold ANYTHING. You will be completely at the mercy of the person selling you some shit or some truth or a mix of both.
Clear thinking is based on standing of the shoulders of great scientists, not by standing on the shoulders of some AgitProp faggots and their paymasters in finance.
Physics and math would do nothing for that. Logic, on the other hand, would.
You're not making any sense. I expected more than just redditors on slashdot.
If you don't see how intentionally creating a situation that is possible (maybe even likely) to result in someone's death is wrong, than I am very glad I do not know you as a person. Then again, since you presume to think I spend time on reddit just because I asked you a question (a conclusion that is both incorrect and not logically reached), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if rational thought is difficult for you.
An inanimate object? Take some time to think of a cogent analogy.
What's the difference? The police is a tool that is used to enforce the law on behalf of the people (in theory, anyway). A gun is used to enforce your will as well; if you tell the gun to shoot, do you want it deciding that it doesn't agree with you?
Besides, you're avoiding my question; if, by your direct action and knowledge, you order someone's potential death, does that not make you as responsible as the people carrying it out?
Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech. Any law which does so is automatically void.
"Humans have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Notice, life comes first." - Jack McCoy
Free speech is an inalienable right, yes. However, when you use that to violate someone else's rights, that's where the line is drawn.