If that's a requirement, why didn't the car just pull over and shut off?
Because the car isn't smart enough to do that. It can keep you between the lines on the road; it can't take you out of the lanes and park you up. That's actually a harder thing to do.
Why didn't the car put its hazards on and let go of the accelerator until it slowed to a crawl while staying between the lines on the road? Yes, there's a possibility he could get rear-ended by some yahoo behind him who wasn't paying attention, but that's better than plowing into a truck in front of him.
Basically, the failure mode for autopilot doesn't have to be "pull over and park safely".
Anyone that has lived with a cat can tell you that they are very social animals. They're just not DEPENDANT on people like dogs are. Dogs are stuck on the "look at me, pay attention to me" mode. Cats are more like people, they have times they want to be with others, and times they want to be alone. They are very social though.
Or, as an analogy, dogs are like five year olds, constantly wanting and needing attention; cats are like teenagers, mostly independent but occasionally affectionate.
Realistically, the anti-disparagement law only lasted this long because Obama's administration wanted it to so they could use it against the Redskins.
The anti-disparagement clause is part of 15 USC 1052(a), and was in the first version of the Lanham Act, passed in 1946, and signed by Truman. It has remained the same over the past 71 years, and Congress, not the President, has the power to change it or keep it. Trying to make this about Obama is just stupid, particularly when the first case about this - Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo - was decided in 2005 during Bush Jr.'s presidency. And it's even stupider, because that case stemmed from a petition to cancel the Redskins' trademark in 1992, during Clinton's first term. This has been an active dispute for 25 years.
The real question is how this is even worthy of a patent.
Well, was anyone doing this back in 2012?
1. A system, comprising: at least one wireless access point configured to provide Internet access to a consumer device within a retail establishment associated with a retailer, and at least one processing component configured to: identify a first uniform resource locater (URL) requested, via the wireless access point, by a browser application executing on the consumer device; determine, based upon a comparison of the first URL to stored information associated with one or more competitors of the retailer, that the first URL is associated with a competitor Web site; identify an offering of an item on the competitor Web site; identify (i) retailer information associated with an offering of the item by the retailer and (ii) competitor information associated with the offering of the item on the competitor Web site, wherein the retailer information comprises a first price for the offering of the item by the retailer and the competitor information comprises a second price for the offering of the item on the competitor Web site; determine that a difference between the first price and the second price exceeds a first threshold value or that a consumer value of a consumer associated with the consumer device does not exceed a second threshold value; determine, responsive to determining that the difference between the first price and the second price exceeds the first threshold value or that the consumer value exceeds the second threshold value, that information associated with an offering of a complementary item that is complementary to the item should be presented to the consumer in lieu of counter-competitive information that competes with the offering of the item on the competitor Web site; and redirect the browser application to a second URL different from the first URL, wherein the second URL is associated with a Web site that includes the information associated with the offering of the complementary item.
If no one was doing it, then it's novel. And even if people were doing some parts of it, but there's a step that no one was doing, then it's not obvious. So the question is "were all of those steps known in the prior art, as shown by their inclusion in either in a single prior art reference or in a combination of multiple prior art references" and if not, then it's worthy of a patent.
So, once the computer diagnoses someone as highly likely to kill themselves in the next week, then does it (or the user) call the men in white coats to give the subject the coat with the funny sleeves? Therapists frequently have a statutory or license requirement to report potential suicides.
We don't know what the rate of false positives are, but with our current state of health insurance, getting locked up for a week and then getting a $50k bill would probably drive most people to suicide.
Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.
It's called a "hate crime" because he's white. Otherwise, it would be "domestic terrorism".
Joking aside, it is terrorism. The intent is to scare others in the targeted group - unlike "I hate you, so I'll kill you," it's "I hate [group], so I'll kill [members of this group]," to cause fear in that group (and, according to this shooter's express wishes, to get them to flee the country). If we're not going to tolerate foreign terrorism, we also shouldn't tolerate domestic terrorism.
It's worse than that. I feel like a fucking bumper sticker because I say this here so often, but the corn used for making fuel is virtually all grown continuously, without crop rotation. This depletes the soil of everything. In cases where they burn the stubble they are at least putting the carbon back into the soil (corn is a heavy soil carbon user) but they are also emitting a bunch of soot.
Yep. Harvest everything in the fall, leave it bare over the winter so that the storms can blow away another inch of top soil, then replant in the spring. Even just filling it in with clover for a season would be better, both for preventing erosion and for replacing nitrogen.
Farming got more profitable when the government fully embraced ethanol. Farmers plowed under land to grow more corn to supply the government-funded ethanol plants that needed to go into gasoline by government mandate. Now the government is blaming farmers for farming and wanting to change the rules.
Rather, they're blaming farmers for being short-sighted and engaging in farming practices that will be profitable for a decade, and then lose so much topsoil that the land is barren for a hundred years, but hey, "fark you, I got mine," right?
I won't have to fly anymore for business, since who's going to send employees anywhere without their laptops? Thanks, TSA, for making teleconferencing even more appealing!
Actually you missed on this one. Mr. Trump has decided to use Twitter as a way to be in communication in his capacity as President of the United States. In addition, he has used his own Twitter ID instead of the POTUS one that was established for these communications. As such, this becomes a channel to reach a government official and selective blocking of that channel becomes a Constitutional issue. The White House Press Secretary has confirmed that official pronouncements come from the RealDonaldTrump account, so he is now SOL with regards to trying to say it is private/personal.
By this logic, since the phone in the Oval Office is an "official" one for the President of the United States to use for communication, it's therefore a channel to reach a government official and the government can't block people from calling it.
But I'm pretty sure they do, and I'm pretty sure that no judge would agree that it's an unconstitutional infringement on your right to petition the government. There are many other means to do so, and this is a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest - preventing harassment of the President.
Look, I don't like the Cheeto any more than you do, but let's not go off the deep end and insist that it's unconstitutional if we don't have unlimited access to the President.
There is a legitimate need for a solution that is like: the "smart speaker" talks over wifi to your desktop, which acts as a server and processes the voice, then searches the locally built index of your locally built library. I suspect this would be a possible thing to build, but much harder for a company to sell it to you like that.
They have such things - or at least, dictation software that processes locally and doesn't use a cloud-based server for its library. They suck.
I mean, really, have you notice how good dictation has gotten in just the past couple years? That's a result of Google and others using machine learning on the inputs from millions of users. Even just 5 years ago, people were still using Dragon Dictation and the like and having to spend hours reading sample paragraphs and training the thing, just to have it say "Eat up, Martha.".
You could probably do a similar locally-processed home automation system, but it would take hours of training and still suck.
I'm a senior software engineer. I work from home because I'd otherwise have a 20 hour commute!
I'm a patent attorney at a large international law firm. At this stage in my career, I'm only rarely meeting with partners, and primarily oversee junior associates. Of those, half are in different states, and so we only "meet" via phone conversations or document sharing in Google Hangouts. All but two of my clients are in other cities, and I only meet with the two here in person once or twice a year (though we have monthly phone calls).
Over the past two years, I've shifted to about 70% telecommuting, going in physically only once or twice a week, with no complaints from the partners. My wife and I recently bought a house that would have an hour and a half daily commute... but I won't have to do that, which made all the difference.
My firm has yet to really embrace this philosophy, even though easily half of us are working remotely at any time: we still maintain expensive offices, and haven't moved to shared office space, and I don't really see that happening until the old pre-Internet partners retire.
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
I agree, but... from the article:
The study further found that hosts who advertised wheelchair accessible homes approved 80% of guests without a disability, but only 60% of travelers with spinal cord injuries, raising further questions about the potential biases of Airbnb users.
It's one thing to say your place isn't wheelchair accessible. It's another to say it is, and then turn away people with wheelchairs.
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
It was a good idea originally - big companies with internal PBX systems could spoof all of their office phones to appear with the main line, so that if you call back, you get their reception. That's not unreasonable, but either they should have to verify their identity and make a publicly available list of all those internal numbers they're spoofing, or it should be like email where you've got both a "from" and "reply to" field. As is, it's just abused by spammers.
Tessa must have some pretty damning evidence against her to fire her for this, because it does open up a legal case against them for retaliation, which their HR department and legal team are no doubt well aware. They'd have to have solid proof that she made it all up or so flagrantly lied about parts of it to be able to fire her over it without legal repercussion.
I would agree, provided they're competent. And while I have no reason to presume that Tesla's HR and legal staff are incompetent, it's a textbook case of retaliation because many, many other allegedly competent HR and legal departments have done the same thing in the past. Hell, there are law firms that have gotten in trouble for retaliation. Some people's outrage level get so high that they stop thinking rationally, and do whatever they can to destroy the person who complained.
Well it's not happening now because there are laws, regulations, conventions, customs, that keep men from using women's facilities. (This is also a deception by you people...it's about ALL women's facilities, not just bathrooms).
If a guy goes into a woman's facility now, they will be chased out, the police might be called, and the guy possibly arrested for disorderly conduct or something.
Wit the laws that the Left is trying to pass, this could not happen. Further, they write the laws so poorly that ANY guy could simply declare he identifies as a woman and walk right in. There is no "Trans Card" or anything else to prevent that. Get that? Any Guy, Any Time, merely needs to declare, and it's an all access pass.
So the bottom line is you would be opening up a very target rich environment for perverts who could enter a women's facility, unquestioned, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they could not do anything absent some evidence like a camera, or inappropriate behavior.
You've got it completely, entirely, 100% backwards. The "Left" is trying to maintain the current status quo in which transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they appear as, and there aren't any required laws. The Right is trying to force big, burly bearded men to go into the women's bathroom.
Specifically, as you note, right now if someone who looks like a guy goes into the women's room, they will be chased out, police called, etc. But with this law, someone who is transgender and, say, looks like Buck Angel (SFW, but most searches are not) will be forced to use the women's room. So, if this law passes, burly bearded men will be walking into the women's bathroom, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they cannot do anything because the law requires them to be there. And that means that there may be other big, burly bearded men walking in behind them who actually are men, and you're not going to be able to find who's whom, unless you have cops stationed at every bathroom checking genitals. Do you want cops to check your wife or daughter's genitals before they can go to the bathroom? I sure don't, but that's what this law seems to require.
Basically, even if you agree with the purpose of the law, the law not only doesn't help that purpose, it achieves the exact opposite.
I bet there are a lot more pervs than there are people like Buck Angel.
I don't know about that. I personally know half a dozen transgender people, but I don't know anyone who has snuck into a bathroom to spy on or grope people. Sounds like the former is much more frequent.
For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary — without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.
Not without checking everyone's genitals.
See, currently, if someone looks like a dude, they're clearly out of place in the women's bathroom, and while cops can't arrest someone merely for being in the bathroom, they can watch them. But this law will require transgender men who looks like dudes to use the women's bathroom. There will be an unending stream of big, burly, mustached and bearded dudes walking into the women's bathroom, because they're required by law to be there. And of course, there are transgender women who may decide to skirt (heh) the law and go to the women's bathroom for their own safety, because they look like women and might get assaulted in the men's room. And they're breaking the law, but how do the cops know whom to arrest?
So, in the name of preventing perversion, this requires the cops to fingerblast every man, woman, and child walking into the bathroom. Just in case.
"The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."
And yet, that's exactly the opposite of what it will achieve. Specifically, the fear is that some dude who looks like a dude will saunter into the women's bathroom for nefarious purposes, right? Well, right now, if you see a dude who looks like a dude walking in, you can say something, because they're clearly out of place.
But what this bill will require is that transgender men who look like dudes will have to use the women's room. So, you'll see big, burly men with beards and mustaches walking in, and you can't say anything, because they're required to be there by law (Google, for example, Buck Angel).
So, this bill, in the name of preventing pervs from sneaking into the bathroom, will actually make it easier for pervs to sneak into the bathroom, because now, their apparent gender identity won't be an indicator of whether they should be there.
The woman only pressed charges when he refused an aids test, and she cannot remove consent AFTER THE FACT, which is what her and Ny tried to do.
You are correct in that, if consent were given at one point, it cannot be retroactively removed at a later point (though, of course, one can remove consent for any further acts at any time). One cannot magically travel back in time to a former instance to change whether there was or was not consent at that time.
Which, of course, is why Assange is guilty of rape.
See, the victim was asleep. She could not possibly have provided consent, because she was asleep. And Assange knew she was asleep, and that she did not provide consent, and he still penetrated here.
The fact that she did not immediately go to press charges AFTER THE FACT is irrelevant, because that does not magically travel back in time to provide retroactive consent: what remains is that, at the time of penetration, Assange did not have consent and knew that he did not have consent. That is the very definition of rape.
Your argument attempting to defend him is absolutely correct, and absolutely damning.
The word has been redefined. It used to imply violence or threat thereof, not any more.
You are correct, but I'd bet you and I would disagree whether that redefinition is a good thing. For example, under the older definition that requires violence or threat, it would not be rape to drug someone into unconsciousness and penetrate them. Nor would it be rape to, as Assange did, penetrate someone while they're asleep, knowing that she had refused sex before falling asleep. Heck, under definitions that were still around until the 1990s, it wasn't even rape to violently force yourself on someone, if the victim was your wife.
But thankfully, even if you disagree, civilization has evolved.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's a requirement, why didn't the car just pull over and shut off?
Because the car isn't smart enough to do that. It can keep you between the lines on the road; it can't take you out of the lanes and park you up. That's actually a harder thing to do.
Why didn't the car put its hazards on and let go of the accelerator until it slowed to a crawl while staying between the lines on the road? Yes, there's a possibility he could get rear-ended by some yahoo behind him who wasn't paying attention, but that's better than plowing into a truck in front of him.
Basically, the failure mode for autopilot doesn't have to be "pull over and park safely".
Anyone that has lived with a cat can tell you that they are very social animals. They're just not DEPENDANT on people like dogs are. Dogs are stuck on the "look at me, pay attention to me" mode. Cats are more like people, they have times they want to be with others, and times they want to be alone. They are very social though.
Or, as an analogy, dogs are like five year olds, constantly wanting and needing attention; cats are like teenagers, mostly independent but occasionally affectionate.
Realistically, the anti-disparagement law only lasted this long because Obama's administration wanted it to so they could use it against the Redskins.
The anti-disparagement clause is part of 15 USC 1052(a), and was in the first version of the Lanham Act, passed in 1946, and signed by Truman. It has remained the same over the past 71 years, and Congress, not the President, has the power to change it or keep it.
Trying to make this about Obama is just stupid, particularly when the first case about this - Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo - was decided in 2005 during Bush Jr.'s presidency. And it's even stupider, because that case stemmed from a petition to cancel the Redskins' trademark in 1992, during Clinton's first term. This has been an active dispute for 25 years.
The real question is how this is even worthy of a patent.
Well, was anyone doing this back in 2012?
1. A system, comprising:
at least one wireless access point configured to provide Internet access to a consumer device within a retail establishment associated with a retailer, and at least one processing component configured to:
identify a first uniform resource locater (URL) requested, via the wireless access point, by a browser application executing on the consumer device;
determine, based upon a comparison of the first URL to stored information associated with one or more competitors of the retailer, that the first URL is associated with a competitor Web site;
identify an offering of an item on the competitor Web site;
identify (i) retailer information associated with an offering of the item by the retailer and (ii) competitor information associated with the offering of the item on the competitor Web site, wherein the retailer information comprises a first price for the offering of the item by the retailer and the competitor information comprises a second price for the offering of the item on the competitor Web site;
determine that a difference between the first price and the second price exceeds a first threshold value or that a consumer value of a consumer associated with the consumer device does not exceed a second threshold value;
determine, responsive to determining that the difference between the first price and the second price exceeds the first threshold value or that the consumer value exceeds the second threshold value, that information associated with an offering of a complementary item that is complementary to the item should be presented to the consumer in lieu of counter-competitive information that competes with the offering of the item on the competitor Web site; and
redirect the browser application to a second URL different from the first URL, wherein the second URL is associated with a Web site that includes the information associated with the offering of the complementary item.
If no one was doing it, then it's novel. And even if people were doing some parts of it, but there's a step that no one was doing, then it's not obvious. So the question is "were all of those steps known in the prior art, as shown by their inclusion in either in a single prior art reference or in a combination of multiple prior art references" and if not, then it's worthy of a patent.
... but we'll make it up in volume!
So, once the computer diagnoses someone as highly likely to kill themselves in the next week, then does it (or the user) call the men in white coats to give the subject the coat with the funny sleeves? Therapists frequently have a statutory or license requirement to report potential suicides.
We don't know what the rate of false positives are, but with our current state of health insurance, getting locked up for a week and then getting a $50k bill would probably drive most people to suicide.
Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.
It's called a "hate crime" because he's white. Otherwise, it would be "domestic terrorism".
Joking aside, it is terrorism. The intent is to scare others in the targeted group - unlike "I hate you, so I'll kill you," it's "I hate [group], so I'll kill [members of this group]," to cause fear in that group (and, according to this shooter's express wishes, to get them to flee the country). If we're not going to tolerate foreign terrorism, we also shouldn't tolerate domestic terrorism.
It's worse than that. I feel like a fucking bumper sticker because I say this here so often, but the corn used for making fuel is virtually all grown continuously, without crop rotation. This depletes the soil of everything. In cases where they burn the stubble they are at least putting the carbon back into the soil (corn is a heavy soil carbon user) but they are also emitting a bunch of soot.
Yep. Harvest everything in the fall, leave it bare over the winter so that the storms can blow away another inch of top soil, then replant in the spring. Even just filling it in with clover for a season would be better, both for preventing erosion and for replacing nitrogen.
Farming got more profitable when the government fully embraced ethanol. Farmers plowed under land to grow more corn to supply the government-funded ethanol plants that needed to go into gasoline by government mandate. Now the government is blaming farmers for farming and wanting to change the rules.
Rather, they're blaming farmers for being short-sighted and engaging in farming practices that will be profitable for a decade, and then lose so much topsoil that the land is barren for a hundred years, but hey, "fark you, I got mine," right?
I won't have to fly anymore for business, since who's going to send employees anywhere without their laptops? Thanks, TSA, for making teleconferencing even more appealing!
Not The Wire. Less blood than NCIS. Lame.
Actually you missed on this one. Mr. Trump has decided to use Twitter as a way to be in communication in his capacity as President of the United States. In addition, he has used his own Twitter ID instead of the POTUS one that was established for these communications. As such, this becomes a channel to reach a government official and selective blocking of that channel becomes a Constitutional issue. The White House Press Secretary has confirmed that official pronouncements come from the RealDonaldTrump account, so he is now SOL with regards to trying to say it is private/personal.
By this logic, since the phone in the Oval Office is an "official" one for the President of the United States to use for communication, it's therefore a channel to reach a government official and the government can't block people from calling it.
But I'm pretty sure they do, and I'm pretty sure that no judge would agree that it's an unconstitutional infringement on your right to petition the government. There are many other means to do so, and this is a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest - preventing harassment of the President.
Look, I don't like the Cheeto any more than you do, but let's not go off the deep end and insist that it's unconstitutional if we don't have unlimited access to the President.
There is a legitimate need for a solution that is like: the "smart speaker" talks over wifi to your desktop, which acts as a server and processes the voice, then searches the locally built index of your locally built library. I suspect this would be a possible thing to build, but much harder for a company to sell it to you like that.
They have such things - or at least, dictation software that processes locally and doesn't use a cloud-based server for its library. They suck.
I mean, really, have you notice how good dictation has gotten in just the past couple years? That's a result of Google and others using machine learning on the inputs from millions of users. Even just 5 years ago, people were still using Dragon Dictation and the like and having to spend hours reading sample paragraphs and training the thing, just to have it say "Eat up, Martha.".
You could probably do a similar locally-processed home automation system, but it would take hours of training and still suck.
The hardware is sound...
The hardware is out of date. And I say this as a lifelong Mac user, working on a MBP right now. I want a Mac Pro with an i9 and a GTX 1080.
I'm a senior software engineer. I work from home because I'd otherwise have a 20 hour commute!
I'm a patent attorney at a large international law firm. At this stage in my career, I'm only rarely meeting with partners, and primarily oversee junior associates. Of those, half are in different states, and so we only "meet" via phone conversations or document sharing in Google Hangouts. All but two of my clients are in other cities, and I only meet with the two here in person once or twice a year (though we have monthly phone calls).
Over the past two years, I've shifted to about 70% telecommuting, going in physically only once or twice a week, with no complaints from the partners. My wife and I recently bought a house that would have an hour and a half daily commute... but I won't have to do that, which made all the difference.
My firm has yet to really embrace this philosophy, even though easily half of us are working remotely at any time: we still maintain expensive offices, and haven't moved to shared office space, and I don't really see that happening until the old pre-Internet partners retire.
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
I agree, but... from the article:
The study further found that hosts who advertised wheelchair accessible homes approved 80% of guests without a disability, but only 60% of travelers with spinal cord injuries, raising further questions about the potential biases of Airbnb users.
It's one thing to say your place isn't wheelchair accessible. It's another to say it is, and then turn away people with wheelchairs.
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
It was a good idea originally - big companies with internal PBX systems could spoof all of their office phones to appear with the main line, so that if you call back, you get their reception. That's not unreasonable, but either they should have to verify their identity and make a publicly available list of all those internal numbers they're spoofing, or it should be like email where you've got both a "from" and "reply to" field. As is, it's just abused by spammers.
Tessa must have some pretty damning evidence against her to fire her for this, because it does open up a legal case against them for retaliation, which their HR department and legal team are no doubt well aware. They'd have to have solid proof that she made it all up or so flagrantly lied about parts of it to be able to fire her over it without legal repercussion.
I would agree, provided they're competent. And while I have no reason to presume that Tesla's HR and legal staff are incompetent, it's a textbook case of retaliation because many, many other allegedly competent HR and legal departments have done the same thing in the past. Hell, there are law firms that have gotten in trouble for retaliation. Some people's outrage level get so high that they stop thinking rationally, and do whatever they can to destroy the person who complained.
This is a typical tactic used by you people.
"Where's the issue? It's NOT Happening!"
Well it's not happening now because there are laws, regulations, conventions, customs, that keep men from using women's facilities. (This is also a deception by you people...it's about ALL women's facilities, not just bathrooms).
If a guy goes into a woman's facility now, they will be chased out, the police might be called, and the guy possibly arrested for disorderly conduct or something.
Wit the laws that the Left is trying to pass, this could not happen. Further, they write the laws so poorly that ANY guy could simply declare he identifies as a woman and walk right in. There is no "Trans Card" or anything else to prevent that. Get that? Any Guy, Any Time, merely needs to declare, and it's an all access pass.
So the bottom line is you would be opening up a very target rich environment for perverts who could enter a women's facility, unquestioned, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they could not do anything absent some evidence like a camera, or inappropriate behavior.
You've got it completely, entirely, 100% backwards. The "Left" is trying to maintain the current status quo in which transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they appear as, and there aren't any required laws. The Right is trying to force big, burly bearded men to go into the women's bathroom.
Specifically, as you note, right now if someone who looks like a guy goes into the women's room, they will be chased out, police called, etc. But with this law, someone who is transgender and, say, looks like Buck Angel (SFW, but most searches are not) will be forced to use the women's room. So, if this law passes, burly bearded men will be walking into the women's bathroom, and if anyone is uncomfortable or even suspicious, they cannot do anything because the law requires them to be there. And that means that there may be other big, burly bearded men walking in behind them who actually are men, and you're not going to be able to find who's whom, unless you have cops stationed at every bathroom checking genitals. Do you want cops to check your wife or daughter's genitals before they can go to the bathroom? I sure don't, but that's what this law seems to require.
Basically, even if you agree with the purpose of the law, the law not only doesn't help that purpose, it achieves the exact opposite.
I bet there are a lot more pervs than there are people like Buck Angel.
I don't know about that. I personally know half a dozen transgender people, but I don't know anyone who has snuck into a bathroom to spy on or grope people. Sounds like the former is much more frequent.
For security and/or police to be able to prevent such assaults, a law explicitly banning men in women's bathrooms may be necessary — without it, such people can not be removed from there preemptively.
Not without checking everyone's genitals.
See, currently, if someone looks like a dude, they're clearly out of place in the women's bathroom, and while cops can't arrest someone merely for being in the bathroom, they can watch them. But this law will require transgender men who looks like dudes to use the women's bathroom. There will be an unending stream of big, burly, mustached and bearded dudes walking into the women's bathroom, because they're required by law to be there.
And of course, there are transgender women who may decide to skirt (heh) the law and go to the women's bathroom for their own safety, because they look like women and might get assaulted in the men's room. And they're breaking the law, but how do the cops know whom to arrest?
So, in the name of preventing perversion, this requires the cops to fingerblast every man, woman, and child walking into the bathroom. Just in case.
"The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."
And yet, that's exactly the opposite of what it will achieve. Specifically, the fear is that some dude who looks like a dude will saunter into the women's bathroom for nefarious purposes, right? Well, right now, if you see a dude who looks like a dude walking in, you can say something, because they're clearly out of place.
But what this bill will require is that transgender men who look like dudes will have to use the women's room. So, you'll see big, burly men with beards and mustaches walking in, and you can't say anything, because they're required to be there by law (Google, for example, Buck Angel).
So, this bill, in the name of preventing pervs from sneaking into the bathroom, will actually make it easier for pervs to sneak into the bathroom, because now, their apparent gender identity won't be an indicator of whether they should be there.
Not disbarred! Now this poor soul will have to practice law in another state. How about some fines greater than his scammed income?
The first question any bar association asks is "have you been subject to discipline by any other bar?" He's not going to practice law ever again.
The woman only pressed charges when he refused an aids test, and she cannot remove consent AFTER THE FACT, which is what her and Ny tried to do.
You are correct in that, if consent were given at one point, it cannot be retroactively removed at a later point (though, of course, one can remove consent for any further acts at any time). One cannot magically travel back in time to a former instance to change whether there was or was not consent at that time.
Which, of course, is why Assange is guilty of rape.
See, the victim was asleep. She could not possibly have provided consent, because she was asleep. And Assange knew she was asleep, and that she did not provide consent, and he still penetrated here. The fact that she did not immediately go to press charges AFTER THE FACT is irrelevant, because that does not magically travel back in time to provide retroactive consent: what remains is that, at the time of penetration, Assange did not have consent and knew that he did not have consent. That is the very definition of rape.
Your argument attempting to defend him is absolutely correct, and absolutely damning.
The word has been redefined. It used to imply violence or threat thereof, not any more.
You are correct, but I'd bet you and I would disagree whether that redefinition is a good thing. For example, under the older definition that requires violence or threat, it would not be rape to drug someone into unconsciousness and penetrate them. Nor would it be rape to, as Assange did, penetrate someone while they're asleep, knowing that she had refused sex before falling asleep. Heck, under definitions that were still around until the 1990s, it wasn't even rape to violently force yourself on someone, if the victim was your wife.
But thankfully, even if you disagree, civilization has evolved.