Actually, it is a virtual certainty. Every time Mickey Mouse...
No, is not a certainty, neither real nor virtual. It is your prediction. Deadpool is not Micky Mouse.
Creators deserve to receive compensation for a reasonable period of time for their works, but not for perpetuity, which is what we effectively have now.
Deadpool is a current product. It has not reached even a 17 year lifespan. Pretending that Deadpool deserves no copyright protection at all because at some time in the far future it might not enter public domain is ridiculous rationalization. Claiming that IT deserves no copyright protection NOW because Disney has been able to get protection for Mickey Mouse is absurd.
Great, then the work has to enter the public domain within finite time.
So you would punish every creator NOW because a few of them have been able to get copyright extended on their products? What an absurd concept. Should everyone who uses a computer be punished NOW because a few of them have become criminal crackers, and a few of them might do so in the future?
This all leaves the main question unanswered. If Deadpool is such critical content to the society as a whole that it must become public domain "within finite time", then how is it that it has so little value that you are unwilling to pay to access it long before it becomes free under any reasonable copyright lifetime? Are you perhaps predicting that Deadpool will become a significant cultural resource in 20 years but that it is worthless now? I find that concept fascinating. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Which is why I said "Linus's responses were appropriate throughout most of Linux's history." Meaning, I wasn't making an argument about today.
If you think that the startup phase of Linux was "most of Linux's history", then you have an odd definition of "startup".
And the evidence that a "Code of Conduct" actually creates a "civil, collegial working environment" is... where?
Did you listen to what I said? I didn't say it did. Don't demand evidence from me for something I didn't say.
Or perhaps people don't like dealing with you because you are cantankerous and don't bother listening to people.
Well, if the situation was that others left the groups I was in and not the other way around, you might have an argument. You might also notice that I'm not being insulting to you nor harassing you, and I haven't even gone so far as to tell you to "shut the fuck up". "Cantankerous" is not "abusive".
No, you cannot cross that line. A hyper sensitive person can take personally any and all criticism,
I don't know what line you think I'm crossing. Of course hyper-sensitive people can take things personally. That is not a reason to justify arrogant, abusive behaviour.
In my book, you can call any "thing" -- something the person did or made -- all sorts of insults,
Of course you can. And when you call an idea "stupid" you are insulting the person. "Stupid" means "demonstrating a lack of intelligence". The idea cannot have the intelligence, only the person who created it.
You don't have to call an idea stupid to say it isn't valid. Civil people can manage to do it, I'm sure that software developers can learn how to do it, too.
Basic training is not "the military", it is a very special case of needing to reformulate civilians into functional military personnel as quickly as possible, and to get those who cannot adapt to leave, before moving them on to more advanced training. It's called "boot camp" for a reason. It lasts for just a few weeks, compared to the rest of an enlistment.
If you find your superiors in an active duty or reserve unit acting like basic training NCOs and continually trying to break you down, then they are doing it wrong, and people who have had a lot of money and time invested in their training will muster out at their next opportunity. In fact, if you read what the best military leaders say about leadership, you'll learn that being an asshole to your subordinates is NOT good leadership in any way.
Software development groups are not "basic training", there is no "life or death" aspect to it, and actively trying to get people to leave is counter-productive. Chasing people away who won't put up with your bullshit means you may chase away the people who have the time and willingness to learn -- if you had been a good enough leader to help them do so. What you will wind up with are a group of people just like you -- who think that being an asshole is a good way to manage other people.
If someone had said to Hawking "your hypothesis is stupid, it doesn't have the basic math to support it and you could never construct an experiment to falsify it, go back to the drawing board", and if it was warranted, then it would have been good feedback.
Other than calling the hypothesis "stupid" -- a hypothesis cannot be stupid, it can be wrong or easily disproven -- I agree.
But saying to him "shut the fuck up" is not "good feedback", nor is any of the other abusive behavior I mentioned.
Linus never insulted the person, just what they did.
The CoC being discussed here covers something other than collegial debate, which telling someone to "shut the fuck up" is not. And the claim was that someone cannot be "brilliant" without going through a test of fire, which is a lot more than what you mentioned. Saying a hypothesis is "stupid" is, indeed, talking about the source of the hypothesis for the reason I already stated, as is calling an idea "insane". Calling an idea "insane" is shorthand for calling the person who promoted the idea insane. "That idea demonstrates a lack of intelligence" (for "stupid") or "that idea demonstrates insanity". That's personal.
That was my point. Your perception of a look is never going to be enough for any kind of complaint.
My point was that you said "complaining... without evidence". If the "look" is sufficiently suggestive or harassing in nature, then it does rise to the level of complaint, yet you think that "evidence" is required before someone can complain.
Let's say you poke your head out of your cubicle and stare at your coworker's ass every time she walks by, or every time you talk to her about anything you stare at her boobs instead of looking her in the eye. Or maybe you become especially clumsy in her presence and keep dropping your pencil so you can try looking up her skirt when you bend over to pick it up. I'd say those "looks" justify a complaint, and requiring "evidence" before she can say anything is promoting the environment.
The legal system spent millions of dollars tracking this guy down, trying him and imprisoning him. Why? To protect the profits of this movie.
Use your imagination. Not only the profits, but cost recovery. Not only for this movie, but for other movies and art that are covered by copyright law. Hint: deterrent.
Why are people compelled to pay taxes to enforce this business model?
Because it isn't a "business model".
Since Deadpool will NEVER in OUR LIVES enter the public domain,
You don't know that, and it is irrelevant to begin with. If you don't value the work enough to pay the producer for his work and effort, then why are you so interested in watching it in the first place? I wouldn't pay anyone for a copy of Deadpool, but I also don't give a damn about watching it.
Disregard copyright and let the business die.
There are some theories that altruism is a valid "business model", where companies pay people to produce art (movies, TV, etc) and then never expect any money in return. This is the business model you would force upon businesses by disregarding copyright -- and you admit that it would result in businesses dying.
If you value the content enough to spend your time viewing it, you should value the time of the producers enough to be willing to pay for it. The claim that it will never see public domain is a juicy rationalization of criminal behavior, as is the complaint that the company may not sell the content to you in the form that you demand it be made available.
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour
How can you document a pattern of behaviour if you do not have a mechanism for complaining about the instances of said behaviour? In other words, it is the repeated sexual harassment complaints that create the documented pattern of behaviour, which will eventually result in action being taken on those complaints. The threshold for action depends on the litigation sensitivity of the organization.
If he is too afraid to speak he can not be brilliant -- he hasn't had a chance to achieve brilliance without engaging with others and correcting, or standing his ground, based on their feedback.
I admit I have not read Stephen Hawking's biography, so I must have missed hearing about his brilliance being created by all the times someone said "you're a stupid git, roll your ass back to the defective asylum you moron" as a means of getting "feedback".
I'm sorry, but people can be brilliant without having to go through public ridicule and harassment. They can be brilliant and also be smart enough to know that being abused and harassed in public isn't a productive use of their abilities. If you are personally used to working in a hostile environment then perhaps you don't recognize how many people choose not to.
There are no incredible ideas that went unnoticed because someone chose not to participate.
I have a rock on my front porch that I bought for $3000 to keep tigers away. I've never had a tiger on my front porch. See how good the rock works? I'll point out now that this is a standard analogy for your kind of claim, not a real rock that I paid actual money for. Just sayin', since last time I used this the person I replied to missed the analogy completely.
The idea that some meek, solitary genius would be the only one to notice is ridiculous.
Every software project, Linux included, has a limited amount to volunteers donating a limited amount of time, and not everything that should be done is being done. Need proof? Why are there ever increasing version numbers? If Linux didn't have resource limitations then version 1.0 would have been complete and bug free from day one.
While it may be rare for a "meek, solitary genius" to be the only one to notice a problem or potential enhancement, it is quite likely that said genius may be the only one who has the time available or current understanding of the problem to deal with it. If you scare him away by being an arrogant asshole to other volunteers, you will lose that volunteer and even maybe believe that the problem or enhancement isn't of interest to anyone because nobody wants to face public excoriation for bringing it up.
And how many bullshit ideas were accepted because criticizing == triggering
False dichotomy. Not being an asshole when someone tries to participate doesn't mean you have to accept everything they submit. So, the answer to your question would be ZERO "bullshit ideas" were accepted. They just aren't thrown back into the face of someone, with a dose of profanity added, who is honestly trying to help but didn't do everything exactly the right way.
If you are a project manager and accept bullshit code into your project for any reason then you are a bad project manager. If you cannot find some way to help your subordinates grow and become better then you are a bad leader. No, yelling at them and telling them to "shut the fuck up" is not how you lead them.
You are confusing "strong leadership" with "be an asshole and denigrate your followers". The two are not synonymous. In fact, those who feel the need to do the latter to be leaders truly are not strong leaders.
and sometimes the only way to shut them the hell up and make them listen is to nuke their ego from orbit and use a few harsh words to drive the point home while you do it.
There is an old leadership principle which goes something like "praise in public, criticize in private".
If your goal is to "nuke someone's ego", then you can do that in private. When you do it in public you 1) look like a dick, and 2) scare away people who very well may have good ideas but don't care to deal with your arrogant and insulting outbursts. Volunteers have a limited amount of time, and a lot of them already understand that wasting their time participating in a system where they can expect to get their ego "nuked" isn't worth it to them.
No, the goal of someone who uses "a few harsh words" in public to criticize others isn't to deal with that one person, it's to demonstrate their own power and scare off anyone else who would dare challenge it.
This method works perfectly in the Military
That you think a software development project has the same needs and concerns as a group where people can be and are ordered to their death, and failure to obey orders can result in other people dying, is interesting. The fact that we are having this discussion shows that no, it does not adapt "nicely" to the software development world. And "nicely" may have been deliberately ironic on your part, but I doubt it.
That is a direct analogy to your claims about how the system works only because Linus is a dick. No, it is not the way I think, and I'm sorry you missed the implicit sarcasm and the implied reductio ad absurdum of your argument.
Yes, I do know that because I actually lived through the period when Linux got its start. It was very, very tough.
No doubt you have no understanding that there is a significant difference between a startup project and one that has run for a couple of decades. No, you do not know that the system would not have worked without assholery on the part of the leader any more than I know that a tiger would have shown up if I hadn't bought the rock. See, that's the analogy. No, you probably do not.
People who think that arrogance, condescention, and crudity are the signs of a good manager and/or a great programmer wouldn't be able to operate in a civil, collegial working environment because they'd be the ones who keep it from happening.
Sad to say, it is not unusual. I long ago stopped bothering to participate in a couple of groups for a programming language because the "in group" was consistently arrogant and condescending towards everyone else. It was painful to watch how new members with new member type questions were treated.
How do we know? They were effective, and that's what counts.
I have an anti-tiger rock on my front porch. It keeps tigers away. It cost me $3000. I know it works, because I've never had a tiger show up on my front porch.
If he had wasted time understanding people's emotions, the Linux kernel wouldn't have succeeded.
You don't know that, any more than I know that a tiger would show up if I hadn't bought the rock.
which collegial practices? Pursuit of the ego, theft of students' work,
While the root is the same, the word "collegial" does not mean "everything that happens in a college". In fact, the word "collegial" applies to many environments. "Collegial" is what should happen in a college, but that doesn't mean that everything that can happen in a college is "collegial". "All A is B" doesn't mean "all B is A".
your top programmer is being a total cunt to your worst programmer
Fire him. Period. If you don't, you are opening yourself to a handful of lawsuits over the hostile workplace you are creating and encouraging. Once you fire your "worst programmer" to try to solve the problem, then you'll create a new "worst programmer" to take his place. If you fire every "worst programmer" to solve the problem, you'll wind up with only one, unmanageable, "top" programmer. If you do fire the "worst programmers" because they complain about the hostile workplace, expect a visit from a process server and the US Department of Labor. If you don't fire the "worst programmers" expect a visit from a process server and Labor over the hostile environment.
You seem to have some difficulty in understanding that a "collegial environment" doesn't mean "accept what someone does with no questions" or "no arguments". It means being civil. It means your top programmer doesn't go out of his way to degrade other people, or "be[ing] a total cunt" to them. "Collegial" means "we are here to accomplish a goal, we work together to get there".
That does NOT mean you never argue with anyone. It does not mean you have to accept everything everyone does. The fact that you believe only the extreme opposites are possible does display a false dichotomy. You do not have to "be[ing] a cunt" to the "worst programmer", nor do you have to accept everything the "worst programmer" does. There is a range of options that does, truly, include being collegial and civil.
Unfortunately, given your insulting attitude... I have to assume that you've never been in a collegial environment, simply because your presence would not allow it. The first time you call your colleague "dipshit" the collegial environment is gone.
I think he did:
"an individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people"
I think he didn't. That's an example. It's not a definition. If you can't tell the difference then you shouldn't be writing laws.
Ron Wyden is the poster child for why the First Amendment is critical to society. It was enacted not to protect speech that everyone approves of, but to protect unpopular speech. You know, the speech that doesn't fit fully within "community standards" or "approved by the government".
Why are you commenting on a subject when you lack remedial knowledge of.
I have no need to participate in your politics of personalities, nor a need to personally insult you, to make my points.
Then it will be trivial for you to list examples of that happening, clown shoes. John Smith shows up to vote or send in his absentee ballot only to find out "he" has already voted.
Personal insult is very convincing. Thanks for stooping to using it to make your point.
Of course if people who plan to commit vote fraud use the names of people who are going to show up, then the fact it happened will be detected. That's why the organizations that run the fraud do their homework. They get the registration lists and look for people who are not going to vote or are very unlikely to do so. The Daley machine in Chicago was famous for using the names of dead people. The cemetaries would empty on voting day.
Voter ID cultists have no problem rattling of dozens of examples of illegal voting to support their claims, despite the fact that none of said examples would have been prevented by ID
If John Smith had to show ID to vote, then the fake John Smith would have had to show ID proving he was John Smith. Now, true, it is not 100% effective because fake IDs can be ginned up for really determined fraudsters, but it would certainly stop the less well funded and run operations. If you think 100% prevention is the only thing to try for, then perhaps I might point to the laws against murder and theft, none of which are 100% effective in stopping that which they try to limit.
Referring to those who point to obvious flaws and methods of committing fraud as "cultists" is insulting, and only shows you have no intention of listening to anyone who disagrees with you.
Indeed, that's previously covered under "Article I. Section 4. Clause I" as already mentioned.
It's been in there since the beginning. No excuse for not reading it.
And if you had read it, you would note that it covers only elections for senator and representative, and does not grant micromanagement authority to Congress even then. No excuse for you not reading it.
Except, what you forget, is the claim that: The only thing there is how the Electoral College votes.
Which, in case you don't know, is provably false, thanks to the aforementioned clause, and those other amendments.
The "aforementioned clause, at best, covers only two offices and NOT the Presidential election. The other amendments cover who can be prohibited from voting and nothing at all about how the election itself is run. The only election over which Congress has been given control is the Electoral College because that is the only true federal level election we have. Or don't you understand the difference between what the amendments require ("when you have an election, you can't charge a poll tax") vs. the micromanagement of "when you have an election is musts be on paper ballots"? You see no difference?
You honestly believe that "You shall use paper ballots for elections" is not covered by "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, "?
Yes, because that clause given NO control over a Presidential election or anything but the two offices it lists to the federal government. You honestly believe it does? Show me the words where it does that. "Congress shall have authority define the place, time, and manner of voting for all partisan and nonpartisan elections by the States" would be a good place to start. Do you find that anywhere?
I don't think you're remotely honest,
Fuck you, too.
but if by some chance you were, and bothered to argue it (which you haven't,
What the fuck do you think pointing out your misinterpretation of A1S4, and your misapplication of the 15th, 24th, and 26th is, if not arguing it? You just glossed over everything I said and then claim I haven't been arguing the point. And you question my honesty.
even though Congress has already passed laws on the subject such as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
If you had bothered to read that Act, you'd know it does not tell states how they must run elections. It tells states that they must provide facilities for handicapped and elderly voters. It does NOT tell states that they must have paper ballots with square boxes and voters must use ink pens or anything about how the election is conducted in general. It specifies the accomadations that must be made, but not how the election is to be run overall.
Face the fact. The US Constitution does not give the Congress the authority to order the states to run their elections as Congress wants them to, with very limited exception. Two specific offices, but not the one that is most susceptible to and the topic of Russian meddling -- The US President. For the election of the US President the Constitution grants no powers to the federal government over the states in how those elections are run. It does have amendments covering prohibitions on who can vote, but that's not how an election is run.
It seems you do. For whatever reason. I suggest not thinking you're so smart, it just makes you look dumber when you're so very wrong.
It seems I do what? Have you read the 26th amendment? Here it is, full text:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any St
Nope. Integrity means you keep your word, even if the rules benefit you, or even, especially if they benefit you.
Yes. He agreed to the rules as they were prior to the election, and he kept his word to agree to the rules after. If he actually did not agree to the rules as you claim, then he would not have run because he would not have accepted the result in any case. By signing on to the process, he agreed to the rules, even if he had previously said the rules were not good.
You mean Al Gore, who had to ask for recounts county-by-county because Florida had no method to request a state-wide recount?
Yes, Al Gore, who wasn't asking for a recount county-by-county but going to court to have entire counties disenfranchised. Not a recount, a "throw out the count". And gosh, there already was a state-wide recount. Must be magic how that happened, huh?
If the method of ballot counting excludes voters, why wouldn't you challenge the method when you can see it is flawed?
The method did not exclude voters. It simply didn't count a vote where none was cast. If you don't mark your ballot clearly and unambiguously in accordance with the instructions for marking it, then you have not voted.
Actually, it was Bush who went to the SCOTUS to try to force Florida not to conduct a proper recount.
Florida had already conducted a proper recount and Al Gore STILL lost. The SCOTUS case was about Gore wanting to overturn the existing, established process adopted by the Florida legislature by calling for another recount, which would have pushed the certification date of the Florida electors past the date of the Electoral College meeting. With no electors from Florida Gore would have had a majority of the Electoral College. When you count the electors from Florida, he lost. By the rules.
SCOTUS ruled, correctly, that the Florida legislature was the body authorized by the US Constitution to determine the voting process in Florida, including number and timing of recounts, and that they had done so properly. There were no grounds for tossing the Florida process. It was constitutional and legal and had been followed. And agreed to by all parties prior to the election.
You remember that thing about integrity meaning you follow the rules you agree to, and even with your addition "even when they don't benefit you'? Gore didn't want to follow the rules he agreed to especially because they didn't benefit him.
But it's ok, you're so partisan, your lack of intergrity is showing itself.
I quote the facts of the cases and actions, you lie about them. And you have the nerve to question my integrity?
Ah, you're right, they only changed the votes that are displayed to the public.
Not even that. It was an IMITATION website that looked like the Florida one, created with the sole purpose of creating a publicity stunt, which was not displayed to the public at all. NO VOTE RESULTS were displayed to the public via this website. Never.
Gosh, huge difference.
Yes, it is a HUGE difference. And since you could have read the article yourself to note that it did not prove that an 11 year old hacked a voting machine, when you claimed that it did prove such a thing you were lying.
Meanwhile, several years ago, Security Firm Shows How To Hack a US Voting Machine.
Another cite that you didn't bother to read, trying to make a claim that is preposterous on its face. That hack required physical access to the voting machine, and 11 year olds are not going to be allowed into that booth to gain that access. THEY CAN'T LEGALLY VOTE. OF COURSE without physical security there is no computer security. Let someone have unfettered access to a voting machine and he can hack it. This isn't news.
Again with the "it is known". Well, okay, Nostradamus, care to provide any evidence of your "visions"?
Your insulting attitude by referring to well-known issues with Chicago voting as my "visions" is ridiculous. You want a discussion, you have it with yourself.
The "Butterfly Ballot" layout was not clear and such a confusing layout can be recreated with non-paper voting schemes
It is important to keep in mind that the objections to the butterfly ballot did not arise until after the first count was done and some reason why the Democrat lost had to be uncovered. Prior to the election BOTH parties had the chance to study and object to the ballot and neither did. I.e., that ballot was acceptable to everyone involved, until after-the-fact it wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is a virtual certainty. Every time Mickey Mouse ...
No, is not a certainty, neither real nor virtual. It is your prediction. Deadpool is not Micky Mouse.
Creators deserve to receive compensation for a reasonable period of time for their works, but not for perpetuity, which is what we effectively have now.
Deadpool is a current product. It has not reached even a 17 year lifespan. Pretending that Deadpool deserves no copyright protection at all because at some time in the far future it might not enter public domain is ridiculous rationalization. Claiming that IT deserves no copyright protection NOW because Disney has been able to get protection for Mickey Mouse is absurd.
Great, then the work has to enter the public domain within finite time.
So you would punish every creator NOW because a few of them have been able to get copyright extended on their products? What an absurd concept. Should everyone who uses a computer be punished NOW because a few of them have become criminal crackers, and a few of them might do so in the future?
This all leaves the main question unanswered. If Deadpool is such critical content to the society as a whole that it must become public domain "within finite time", then how is it that it has so little value that you are unwilling to pay to access it long before it becomes free under any reasonable copyright lifetime? Are you perhaps predicting that Deadpool will become a significant cultural resource in 20 years but that it is worthless now? I find that concept fascinating. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
I had no code of conduct. I do not have one now. I use Lunux so I am de facto part of said community.
Using someone's software does not make you a part of the software developer community.
Which is why I said "Linus's responses were appropriate throughout most of Linux's history." Meaning, I wasn't making an argument about today.
If you think that the startup phase of Linux was "most of Linux's history", then you have an odd definition of "startup".
And the evidence that a "Code of Conduct" actually creates a "civil, collegial working environment" is... where?
Did you listen to what I said? I didn't say it did. Don't demand evidence from me for something I didn't say.
Or perhaps people don't like dealing with you because you are cantankerous and don't bother listening to people.
Well, if the situation was that others left the groups I was in and not the other way around, you might have an argument. You might also notice that I'm not being insulting to you nor harassing you, and I haven't even gone so far as to tell you to "shut the fuck up". "Cantankerous" is not "abusive".
No, you cannot cross that line. A hyper sensitive person can take personally any and all criticism,
I don't know what line you think I'm crossing. Of course hyper-sensitive people can take things personally. That is not a reason to justify arrogant, abusive behaviour.
In my book, you can call any "thing" -- something the person did or made -- all sorts of insults,
Of course you can. And when you call an idea "stupid" you are insulting the person. "Stupid" means "demonstrating a lack of intelligence". The idea cannot have the intelligence, only the person who created it.
You don't have to call an idea stupid to say it isn't valid. Civil people can manage to do it, I'm sure that software developers can learn how to do it, too.
I learned this in Basic Training.
Basic training is not "the military", it is a very special case of needing to reformulate civilians into functional military personnel as quickly as possible, and to get those who cannot adapt to leave, before moving them on to more advanced training. It's called "boot camp" for a reason. It lasts for just a few weeks, compared to the rest of an enlistment.
If you find your superiors in an active duty or reserve unit acting like basic training NCOs and continually trying to break you down, then they are doing it wrong, and people who have had a lot of money and time invested in their training will muster out at their next opportunity. In fact, if you read what the best military leaders say about leadership, you'll learn that being an asshole to your subordinates is NOT good leadership in any way.
Software development groups are not "basic training", there is no "life or death" aspect to it, and actively trying to get people to leave is counter-productive. Chasing people away who won't put up with your bullshit means you may chase away the people who have the time and willingness to learn -- if you had been a good enough leader to help them do so. What you will wind up with are a group of people just like you -- who think that being an asshole is a good way to manage other people.
If someone had said to Hawking "your hypothesis is stupid, it doesn't have the basic math to support it and you could never construct an experiment to falsify it, go back to the drawing board", and if it was warranted, then it would have been good feedback.
Other than calling the hypothesis "stupid" -- a hypothesis cannot be stupid, it can be wrong or easily disproven -- I agree.
But saying to him "shut the fuck up" is not "good feedback", nor is any of the other abusive behavior I mentioned.
Linus never insulted the person, just what they did.
The CoC being discussed here covers something other than collegial debate, which telling someone to "shut the fuck up" is not. And the claim was that someone cannot be "brilliant" without going through a test of fire, which is a lot more than what you mentioned. Saying a hypothesis is "stupid" is, indeed, talking about the source of the hypothesis for the reason I already stated, as is calling an idea "insane". Calling an idea "insane" is shorthand for calling the person who promoted the idea insane. "That idea demonstrates a lack of intelligence" (for "stupid") or "that idea demonstrates insanity". That's personal.
That was my point. Your perception of a look is never going to be enough for any kind of complaint.
My point was that you said "complaining ... without evidence". If the "look" is sufficiently suggestive or harassing in nature, then it does rise to the level of complaint, yet you think that "evidence" is required before someone can complain.
Let's say you poke your head out of your cubicle and stare at your coworker's ass every time she walks by, or every time you talk to her about anything you stare at her boobs instead of looking her in the eye. Or maybe you become especially clumsy in her presence and keep dropping your pencil so you can try looking up her skirt when you bend over to pick it up. I'd say those "looks" justify a complaint, and requiring "evidence" before she can say anything is promoting the environment.
The legal system spent millions of dollars tracking this guy down, trying him and imprisoning him. Why? To protect the profits of this movie.
Use your imagination. Not only the profits, but cost recovery. Not only for this movie, but for other movies and art that are covered by copyright law. Hint: deterrent.
Why are people compelled to pay taxes to enforce this business model?
Because it isn't a "business model".
Since Deadpool will NEVER in OUR LIVES enter the public domain,
You don't know that, and it is irrelevant to begin with. If you don't value the work enough to pay the producer for his work and effort, then why are you so interested in watching it in the first place? I wouldn't pay anyone for a copy of Deadpool, but I also don't give a damn about watching it.
Disregard copyright and let the business die.
There are some theories that altruism is a valid "business model", where companies pay people to produce art (movies, TV, etc) and then never expect any money in return. This is the business model you would force upon businesses by disregarding copyright -- and you admit that it would result in businesses dying.
If you value the content enough to spend your time viewing it, you should value the time of the producers enough to be willing to pay for it. The claim that it will never see public domain is a juicy rationalization of criminal behavior, as is the complaint that the company may not sell the content to you in the form that you demand it be made available.
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour
How can you document a pattern of behaviour if you do not have a mechanism for complaining about the instances of said behaviour? In other words, it is the repeated sexual harassment complaints that create the documented pattern of behaviour, which will eventually result in action being taken on those complaints. The threshold for action depends on the litigation sensitivity of the organization.
Complaining about looks with no evidence
How does one document "a look"?
If he is too afraid to speak he can not be brilliant -- he hasn't had a chance to achieve brilliance without engaging with others and correcting, or standing his ground, based on their feedback.
I admit I have not read Stephen Hawking's biography, so I must have missed hearing about his brilliance being created by all the times someone said "you're a stupid git, roll your ass back to the defective asylum you moron" as a means of getting "feedback".
I'm sorry, but people can be brilliant without having to go through public ridicule and harassment. They can be brilliant and also be smart enough to know that being abused and harassed in public isn't a productive use of their abilities. If you are personally used to working in a hostile environment then perhaps you don't recognize how many people choose not to.
There are no incredible ideas that went unnoticed because someone chose not to participate.
I have a rock on my front porch that I bought for $3000 to keep tigers away. I've never had a tiger on my front porch. See how good the rock works? I'll point out now that this is a standard analogy for your kind of claim, not a real rock that I paid actual money for. Just sayin', since last time I used this the person I replied to missed the analogy completely.
The idea that some meek, solitary genius would be the only one to notice is ridiculous.
Every software project, Linux included, has a limited amount to volunteers donating a limited amount of time, and not everything that should be done is being done. Need proof? Why are there ever increasing version numbers? If Linux didn't have resource limitations then version 1.0 would have been complete and bug free from day one.
While it may be rare for a "meek, solitary genius" to be the only one to notice a problem or potential enhancement, it is quite likely that said genius may be the only one who has the time available or current understanding of the problem to deal with it. If you scare him away by being an arrogant asshole to other volunteers, you will lose that volunteer and even maybe believe that the problem or enhancement isn't of interest to anyone because nobody wants to face public excoriation for bringing it up.
And how many bullshit ideas were accepted because criticizing == triggering
False dichotomy. Not being an asshole when someone tries to participate doesn't mean you have to accept everything they submit. So, the answer to your question would be ZERO "bullshit ideas" were accepted. They just aren't thrown back into the face of someone, with a dose of profanity added, who is honestly trying to help but didn't do everything exactly the right way.
If you are a project manager and accept bullshit code into your project for any reason then you are a bad project manager. If you cannot find some way to help your subordinates grow and become better then you are a bad leader. No, yelling at them and telling them to "shut the fuck up" is not how you lead them.
you need strong leadership/management
You are confusing "strong leadership" with "be an asshole and denigrate your followers". The two are not synonymous. In fact, those who feel the need to do the latter to be leaders truly are not strong leaders.
and sometimes the only way to shut them the hell up and make them listen is to nuke their ego from orbit and use a few harsh words to drive the point home while you do it.
There is an old leadership principle which goes something like "praise in public, criticize in private".
If your goal is to "nuke someone's ego", then you can do that in private. When you do it in public you 1) look like a dick, and 2) scare away people who very well may have good ideas but don't care to deal with your arrogant and insulting outbursts. Volunteers have a limited amount of time, and a lot of them already understand that wasting their time participating in a system where they can expect to get their ego "nuked" isn't worth it to them.
No, the goal of someone who uses "a few harsh words" in public to criticize others isn't to deal with that one person, it's to demonstrate their own power and scare off anyone else who would dare challenge it.
This method works perfectly in the Military
That you think a software development project has the same needs and concerns as a group where people can be and are ordered to their death, and failure to obey orders can result in other people dying, is interesting. The fact that we are having this discussion shows that no, it does not adapt "nicely" to the software development world. And "nicely" may have been deliberately ironic on your part, but I doubt it.
No doubt that's the way you think.
That is a direct analogy to your claims about how the system works only because Linus is a dick. No, it is not the way I think, and I'm sorry you missed the implicit sarcasm and the implied reductio ad absurdum of your argument.
Yes, I do know that because I actually lived through the period when Linux got its start. It was very, very tough.
No doubt you have no understanding that there is a significant difference between a startup project and one that has run for a couple of decades. No, you do not know that the system would not have worked without assholery on the part of the leader any more than I know that a tiger would have shown up if I hadn't bought the rock. See, that's the analogy. No, you probably do not. People who think that arrogance, condescention, and crudity are the signs of a good manager and/or a great programmer wouldn't be able to operate in a civil, collegial working environment because they'd be the ones who keep it from happening.
Sad to say, it is not unusual. I long ago stopped bothering to participate in a couple of groups for a programming language because the "in group" was consistently arrogant and condescending towards everyone else. It was painful to watch how new members with new member type questions were treated.
How do we know? They were effective, and that's what counts.
I have an anti-tiger rock on my front porch. It keeps tigers away. It cost me $3000. I know it works, because I've never had a tiger show up on my front porch.
If he had wasted time understanding people's emotions, the Linux kernel wouldn't have succeeded.
You don't know that, any more than I know that a tiger would show up if I hadn't bought the rock.
which collegial practices? Pursuit of the ego, theft of students' work,
While the root is the same, the word "collegial" does not mean "everything that happens in a college". In fact, the word "collegial" applies to many environments. "Collegial" is what should happen in a college, but that doesn't mean that everything that can happen in a college is "collegial". "All A is B" doesn't mean "all B is A".
your top programmer is being a total cunt to your worst programmer
Fire him. Period. If you don't, you are opening yourself to a handful of lawsuits over the hostile workplace you are creating and encouraging. Once you fire your "worst programmer" to try to solve the problem, then you'll create a new "worst programmer" to take his place. If you fire every "worst programmer" to solve the problem, you'll wind up with only one, unmanageable, "top" programmer. If you do fire the "worst programmers" because they complain about the hostile workplace, expect a visit from a process server and the US Department of Labor. If you don't fire the "worst programmers" expect a visit from a process server and Labor over the hostile environment.
You seem to have some difficulty in understanding that a "collegial environment" doesn't mean "accept what someone does with no questions" or "no arguments". It means being civil. It means your top programmer doesn't go out of his way to degrade other people, or "be[ing] a total cunt" to them. "Collegial" means "we are here to accomplish a goal, we work together to get there".
That does NOT mean you never argue with anyone. It does not mean you have to accept everything everyone does. The fact that you believe only the extreme opposites are possible does display a false dichotomy. You do not have to "be[ing] a cunt" to the "worst programmer", nor do you have to accept everything the "worst programmer" does. There is a range of options that does, truly, include being collegial and civil.
Unfortunately, given your insulting attitude ... I have to assume that you've never been in a collegial environment, simply because your presence would not allow it. The first time you call your colleague "dipshit" the collegial environment is gone.
I think he did: "an individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people"
I think he didn't. That's an example. It's not a definition. If you can't tell the difference then you shouldn't be writing laws.
Ron Wyden is the poster child for why the First Amendment is critical to society. It was enacted not to protect speech that everyone approves of, but to protect unpopular speech. You know, the speech that doesn't fit fully within "community standards" or "approved by the government".
Why are you commenting on a subject when you lack remedial knowledge of.
I have no need to participate in your politics of personalities, nor a need to personally insult you, to make my points.
Then it will be trivial for you to list examples of that happening, clown shoes. John Smith shows up to vote or send in his absentee ballot only to find out "he" has already voted.
Personal insult is very convincing. Thanks for stooping to using it to make your point.
Of course if people who plan to commit vote fraud use the names of people who are going to show up, then the fact it happened will be detected. That's why the organizations that run the fraud do their homework. They get the registration lists and look for people who are not going to vote or are very unlikely to do so. The Daley machine in Chicago was famous for using the names of dead people. The cemetaries would empty on voting day.
Voter ID cultists have no problem rattling of dozens of examples of illegal voting to support their claims, despite the fact that none of said examples would have been prevented by ID
If John Smith had to show ID to vote, then the fake John Smith would have had to show ID proving he was John Smith. Now, true, it is not 100% effective because fake IDs can be ginned up for really determined fraudsters, but it would certainly stop the less well funded and run operations. If you think 100% prevention is the only thing to try for, then perhaps I might point to the laws against murder and theft, none of which are 100% effective in stopping that which they try to limit.
Referring to those who point to obvious flaws and methods of committing fraud as "cultists" is insulting, and only shows you have no intention of listening to anyone who disagrees with you.
Indeed, that's previously covered under "Article I. Section 4. Clause I" as already mentioned. It's been in there since the beginning. No excuse for not reading it.
And if you had read it, you would note that it covers only elections for senator and representative, and does not grant micromanagement authority to Congress even then. No excuse for you not reading it.
Except, what you forget, is the claim that: The only thing there is how the Electoral College votes. Which, in case you don't know, is provably false, thanks to the aforementioned clause, and those other amendments.
The "aforementioned clause, at best, covers only two offices and NOT the Presidential election. The other amendments cover who can be prohibited from voting and nothing at all about how the election itself is run. The only election over which Congress has been given control is the Electoral College because that is the only true federal level election we have. Or don't you understand the difference between what the amendments require ("when you have an election, you can't charge a poll tax") vs. the micromanagement of "when you have an election is musts be on paper ballots"? You see no difference?
You honestly believe that "You shall use paper ballots for elections" is not covered by "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, "?
Yes, because that clause given NO control over a Presidential election or anything but the two offices it lists to the federal government. You honestly believe it does? Show me the words where it does that. "Congress shall have authority define the place, time, and manner of voting for all partisan and nonpartisan elections by the States" would be a good place to start. Do you find that anywhere?
I don't think you're remotely honest,
Fuck you, too.
but if by some chance you were, and bothered to argue it (which you haven't,
What the fuck do you think pointing out your misinterpretation of A1S4, and your misapplication of the 15th, 24th, and 26th is, if not arguing it? You just glossed over everything I said and then claim I haven't been arguing the point. And you question my honesty.
even though Congress has already passed laws on the subject such as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
If you had bothered to read that Act, you'd know it does not tell states how they must run elections. It tells states that they must provide facilities for handicapped and elderly voters. It does NOT tell states that they must have paper ballots with square boxes and voters must use ink pens or anything about how the election is conducted in general. It specifies the accomadations that must be made, but not how the election is to be run overall.
Face the fact. The US Constitution does not give the Congress the authority to order the states to run their elections as Congress wants them to, with very limited exception. Two specific offices, but not the one that is most susceptible to and the topic of Russian meddling -- The US President. For the election of the US President the Constitution grants no powers to the federal government over the states in how those elections are run. It does have amendments covering prohibitions on who can vote, but that's not how an election is run.
It seems you do. For whatever reason. I suggest not thinking you're so smart, it just makes you look dumber when you're so very wrong.
It seems I do what? Have you read the 26th amendment? Here it is, full text:
Nope. Integrity means you keep your word, even if the rules benefit you, or even, especially if they benefit you.
Yes. He agreed to the rules as they were prior to the election, and he kept his word to agree to the rules after. If he actually did not agree to the rules as you claim, then he would not have run because he would not have accepted the result in any case. By signing on to the process, he agreed to the rules, even if he had previously said the rules were not good.
You mean Al Gore, who had to ask for recounts county-by-county because Florida had no method to request a state-wide recount?
Yes, Al Gore, who wasn't asking for a recount county-by-county but going to court to have entire counties disenfranchised. Not a recount, a "throw out the count". And gosh, there already was a state-wide recount. Must be magic how that happened, huh?
If the method of ballot counting excludes voters, why wouldn't you challenge the method when you can see it is flawed?
The method did not exclude voters. It simply didn't count a vote where none was cast. If you don't mark your ballot clearly and unambiguously in accordance with the instructions for marking it, then you have not voted.
Actually, it was Bush who went to the SCOTUS to try to force Florida not to conduct a proper recount.
Florida had already conducted a proper recount and Al Gore STILL lost. The SCOTUS case was about Gore wanting to overturn the existing, established process adopted by the Florida legislature by calling for another recount, which would have pushed the certification date of the Florida electors past the date of the Electoral College meeting. With no electors from Florida Gore would have had a majority of the Electoral College. When you count the electors from Florida, he lost. By the rules.
SCOTUS ruled, correctly, that the Florida legislature was the body authorized by the US Constitution to determine the voting process in Florida, including number and timing of recounts, and that they had done so properly. There were no grounds for tossing the Florida process. It was constitutional and legal and had been followed. And agreed to by all parties prior to the election.
You remember that thing about integrity meaning you follow the rules you agree to, and even with your addition "even when they don't benefit you'? Gore didn't want to follow the rules he agreed to especially because they didn't benefit him.
But it's ok, you're so partisan, your lack of intergrity is showing itself.
I quote the facts of the cases and actions, you lie about them. And you have the nerve to question my integrity?
Ah, you're right, they only changed the votes that are displayed to the public.
Not even that. It was an IMITATION website that looked like the Florida one, created with the sole purpose of creating a publicity stunt, which was not displayed to the public at all. NO VOTE RESULTS were displayed to the public via this website. Never.
Gosh, huge difference.
Yes, it is a HUGE difference. And since you could have read the article yourself to note that it did not prove that an 11 year old hacked a voting machine, when you claimed that it did prove such a thing you were lying.
Meanwhile, several years ago, Security Firm Shows How To Hack a US Voting Machine.
Another cite that you didn't bother to read, trying to make a claim that is preposterous on its face. That hack required physical access to the voting machine, and 11 year olds are not going to be allowed into that booth to gain that access. THEY CAN'T LEGALLY VOTE. OF COURSE without physical security there is no computer security. Let someone have unfettered access to a voting machine and he can hack it. This isn't news.
Again with the "it is known". Well, okay, Nostradamus, care to provide any evidence of your "visions"?
Your insulting attitude by referring to well-known issues with Chicago voting as my "visions" is ridiculous. You want a discussion, you have it with yourself.
The "Butterfly Ballot" layout was not clear and such a confusing layout can be recreated with non-paper voting schemes
It is important to keep in mind that the objections to the butterfly ballot did not arise until after the first count was done and some reason why the Democrat lost had to be uncovered. Prior to the election BOTH parties had the chance to study and object to the ballot and neither did. I.e., that ballot was acceptable to everyone involved, until after-the-fact it wasn't.
Like being able to vote in peace and drop it off.
Yes, your convenience is much more important that securing the vote to make sure it is correct and honest.