A belief system that promotes intolerance and commands you harm other people should not be cherished. Such belief systems should be ridiculed, not protected. It's these nutty superstitions that have seen the subjugation of women for thousands of years. That's half the population that are negatively impacted by these myths. Enough is enough. It needs to stop.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with gays. I didn't even infer that, so pull your head out of your arse,
I'm saying that as a news headline it's not important. Saying "gay nightclub" is nearly justifying this tragedy on the basis of the kind of people that frequented it. It doesn't. There is no justification for this tragedy.
Let's call religion what it is and stop pandering to it. It's lunacy. Abject, unfounded nonsense that causes people to think that terrible acts are actually good.
Why is it always reported as a gay nightclub and not just a nightclub? I find this annoying, because whether or not it is a gay nightclub is irrelevant to this tragedy.
Wearing something so you don't offend an imaginary being seems pretty ridiculous to me. Being offended by the top of a person's head is also ridiculous. Outlawing the exposure of your head? That's a crime against humanity. The sooner these childish beliefs end the better.
The encryption keys and protection mechanism are hardware based, not software based. The bytes in storage are useless without the phone's exact hardware. Unless they try and brute force the encryption. How many millions of years would that take?
There is a certain amount of irony that an organisation whose primary business is to show people entertaining fiction is not willing to show people a different kind of fiction during adverts.
They have a book that says they have an invisible friend, and that this invisible friend will provide them some kind of paradise after death. A way to ensure they get to this make-believe place is to kill people who don't have the same imaginary friend.
Belief in an afterlife is not only unreasonable, it's dangerous.
There is a subtle but important difference between these two situations. In the OP, the religious garb does not impede identification. In your situation it very much does. The best solution available to my mind, is to have the appropriate picture taken but if identification is required later have it performed by a woman.
You would support institutionalised and government sanctioned sexism? For what? So someone's imaginary friend doesn't get annoyed?
No thanks. Freedom is far more important that supporting crazy, harmful and dangerous ideas.
The document mentioned in the summary repeatedly uses the term "Java" when they mean "javascript". That's such a rookie mistake that it's difficult to take anything else they say seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
A belief system that promotes intolerance and commands you harm other people should not be cherished. Such belief systems should be ridiculed, not protected. It's these nutty superstitions that have seen the subjugation of women for thousands of years. That's half the population that are negatively impacted by these myths. Enough is enough. It needs to stop.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with gays. I didn't even infer that, so pull your head out of your arse,
I'm saying that as a news headline it's not important. Saying "gay nightclub" is nearly justifying this tragedy on the basis of the kind of people that frequented it. It doesn't. There is no justification for this tragedy.
Let's call religion what it is and stop pandering to it. It's lunacy. Abject, unfounded nonsense that causes people to think that terrible acts are actually good.
It really does. The Abrahamic religions are barbaric. Let's stop passing these dangerous superstitions onto successive generations.
Why is it always reported as a gay nightclub and not just a nightclub? I find this annoying, because whether or not it is a gay nightclub is irrelevant to this tragedy.
If it were the case that we have no free will (which I think is likely) then we aren't autonomous either (and nothing is).
Nobody is "born into a religion". Everyone is born an atheist because at the time of birth they don't believe in any gods.
Non-believers tend to have the scientific process to back them up. Believers have faith, which means believing in shit without good reason.
Wearing something so you don't offend an imaginary being seems pretty ridiculous to me. Being offended by the top of a person's head is also ridiculous. Outlawing the exposure of your head? That's a crime against humanity. The sooner these childish beliefs end the better.
The encryption keys and protection mechanism are hardware based, not software based. The bytes in storage are useless without the phone's exact hardware. Unless they try and brute force the encryption. How many millions of years would that take?
You mean they'll pay you for that? My guidance counsellor has some serious explaining to do...
Sure, unless today is the end of a sprint and you have 20 developers trying to merge their feature branches into the deployed branch.
I doubt they block encrypted traffic. Working around this with a VPN or tunnel would be trivial.
It does to those that own the content. The licensing agreements are about geographical location, not where the account holds primarily lives.
Ok, you win. :-)
Only if you fall for the dubious exception to the definition of "prime" that excludes 1 because it makes maths more convenient. :-)
There is a certain amount of irony that an organisation whose primary business is to show people entertaining fiction is not willing to show people a different kind of fiction during adverts.
Having free speech doesn't mean every company must say what you want them to. It's up to them what they show their patrons.
Stripped? We're talking about showing a face.
Treating people as equals trumps protection of fairy tales, er, I mean religion.
They have a book that says they have an invisible friend, and that this invisible friend will provide them some kind of paradise after death. A way to ensure they get to this make-believe place is to kill people who don't have the same imaginary friend.
Belief in an afterlife is not only unreasonable, it's dangerous.
Stupid ideas should be attacked. Reason should always win over insanity.
There is a subtle but important difference between these two situations. In the OP, the religious garb does not impede identification. In your situation it very much does. The best solution available to my mind, is to have the appropriate picture taken but if identification is required later have it performed by a woman.
You would support institutionalised and government sanctioned sexism? For what? So someone's imaginary friend doesn't get annoyed?
No thanks. Freedom is far more important that supporting crazy, harmful and dangerous ideas.
Belief in a god is delusion. Only children, the gullible and the mentally challenged have imaginary friends.
Given how many people think there is an imaginary friend in the sky that looks out for them and hears their prayers, this is not surprising.
The document mentioned in the summary repeatedly uses the term "Java" when they mean "javascript". That's such a rookie mistake that it's difficult to take anything else they say seriously.