You can sue for copyright infringement without registering the copyright. Registering helps, though; for example, you can then sue for statutory rather than actual damages (IIRC - IANAL).
Winner could have had a jury, too. In each case, the jury would decide whether Winner sold illegal drugs or the drug dealer leaked classified information, and that would determine the verdict. No difference.
War does not require a declaration of war from both sides. It's possible for one country to attack another with no declarations issued, but they're still at war.
Failure to protect classification for negligence is not prosecuted, as far as I can tell. One person I read about agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor (and that will not normally get you jail time), but didn't have to. There were cases of security clearances being lost temporarily or indefinitely, people losing their jobs, and I doubt it's ever been a career-enhancing move.
You may not think this is right, but it's how it's been done for as long as I can tell. Prosecuting Clinton would have been special treatment. Not prosecuting her is normal treatment.
Uber may well provide valuable services, but it doesn't excuse what else the company does. If I were to produce numerous masterpieces of art, and only murdered a few people here and there, I'd be in prison for a long time.
Being "free from intimidation or threats of violence" requires excluding those who they fear from their "safe space".
Only if you're being stupid about it.
My house is a safe space in that regard, in that I do not tolerate intimidation or threats of violence and will enforce that as necessary (yeah, I'm willing to break the rule to enforce it). This doesn't mean I have to exclude people preemptively based on what they are. I've hosted liberals, conservatives, the odd anarchist (very odd, to be honest), assorted genders, and everybody goes along with that rule. I've got a fair amount of intellectual diversity going on, and discussion on a wide variety of topics. People bring up topics they're interested in to hear what others have to say.
It's easier to do this in a small group, of course, but it's possible to have a larger group with generally accepted rules.
Which one is going to do a better job? I'd assume you'd want to put together the best team you can. If this requires making it into a social group that gets things done, what's wrong with that?
Why don't you care how your coworkers feel about working together? If you're trying to hold a team together, particularly a volunteer team, you should be very interested in that. It's fairly well accepted that you can hire someone who's technically good but has a toxic personality, and that will actively hurt your team, so it's not an unknown concept.
Self-reported claims are facts. You ask people things, you write down your protocol and the answers, and you've got objective facts you can do science with. The self-reporting may be bad, in which case you need to improve your protocol, and the claims may be false, but people do science with potentially faulty instruments all the time.
Lots of diagnoses, particularly psychological, are based on self-reported claims. Most diagnostic processes start with the self-reported claims. They're good enough for practical use.
You see, that's the core problem with using subjective "feels" to reach the conclusion that you did: why should one person's "I feel unwelcome" trump the other person's "I feel that they were welcome"?
One person is reporting how she feels. The other is reporting how she feels someone else should feel, or how they wanted someone else to feel, or what she was trying to get across to someone else. This really isn't difficult.
There is a difference between feeling unwelcome and being unwelcome, but in this case we're talking about someone in a situation who will make the choice whether to leave or remain, and in that case how that person feels is more important.
Look. Some people have a deft touch with others. I don't. I get along fine anyway, since I do know etiquette well and am generally a good guy. However, if I want to approach someone socially there is a significant chance that I'll miscalculate and deliver my message badly, and I haven't found a way to get around that. I found this really frustrating when I was younger.
What GP said really had nothing to do with male vs. female. Any two people will have different interests in a relationship. Part of making marriage work is making sure your spouse gets enough of what he or she wants, and this will vary depending on a lot of things.
But on Github, or in the workplace, or just walking down the street...
I spend about a quarter of my time at work, and many men work more hours than that. I meet women I like a lot there, even in a male-dominated area. If I weren't already married, I'd be interested in some of them as romantic partners.
Also, as an ASD geek, I find small talk unnatural, and I have an easier time getting to know people in a somewhat task-oriented environment (like the one I met my wife in). I have trouble reading subtle cues.
Actually, it is a problem for men. They typically have to face more rejection, and I'd suspect that the number of socially inept males that don't know how to initiate a possible romantic relationship is higher than the number of females in the same situation.
Historically, a fair number of women have adopted fake male names. In the US, it's generally legal to go by a name other than your legal one as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes. There's also the possibility of using initials instead of full names.
The fatal flaw of third wave feminism is that it is a tyranny of the weak. And such as it is, the strong will only put up with it for so long.
There are weaker and stronger people around, and I don't see that the weaker are any less deserving. They aren't, in my observation, less productive in general. The difference between what you said and "the strong will avoid preying on the weak only so long" is subtle at best.
How does one know what they think if you don't allow them to talk?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that it's difficult to find what Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos think about things? We don't know their private thoughts, but we wouldn't if we went to a lecture by one of them anyway. It's easy enough to find what sorts of things they're likely to talk about, and what they're likely to say about them. It's reasonable to figure, knowing this, that they aren't going to be worth scheduling.
We're not talking about the sex ratio here. We're talking about the treatment of people. If everything were peachy, I'd still expect OSS projects to be male-heavy, since the field appears to attract more men than women. (I could be wrong here, of course. I don't actually know what would happen if everything were peachy.) If we treat some people badly and chase them away, we lose their contributions and deprive them of opportunities, and that's true regardless of gender. GP's point is that treating everyone better, regardless of gender, is likely to improve things, but there's still more hostility towards women than men.
Conscription isn't compatible with the needs of a high-tech military.
I'm not so sure about that. This isn't the first time we've had high-tech militaries compared to what we had. Consider the introduction of indirect-fire artillery and radios and complicated vehicles. We dramatically expanded the size of the army before and during WWII using conscription while using more advanced technology than we'd had.
The goal of high tech is usually to make things more effective and ideally easier on the user, at the cost of greater initial cost. It may require a group of geniuses to devise a cool new device, but it may be easy for the average conscript to use.
Any person of any political persuasion is free to establish some sort of private discussion group that is restricted to some political slant. People all over the political spectrum do that. Is it your opinion that I should have the right to speak favorably of abortion rights in any Republican forum?
The electromagnetic spectrum is legally considered a limited public resource. ABC (well, its affiliates) use that particular public resource, and there are restrictions on what they are allowed to do. There are no corresponding limitations on broadcasts by other means, such as cable TV or YouTube, because they don't use such resources.
Slashdot Mirror
You can sue for copyright infringement without registering the copyright. Registering helps, though; for example, you can then sue for statutory rather than actual damages (IIRC - IANAL).
Winner could have had a jury, too. In each case, the jury would decide whether Winner sold illegal drugs or the drug dealer leaked classified information, and that would determine the verdict. No difference.
War does not require a declaration of war from both sides. It's possible for one country to attack another with no declarations issued, but they're still at war.
Failure to protect classification for negligence is not prosecuted, as far as I can tell. One person I read about agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor (and that will not normally get you jail time), but didn't have to. There were cases of security clearances being lost temporarily or indefinitely, people losing their jobs, and I doubt it's ever been a career-enhancing move.
You may not think this is right, but it's how it's been done for as long as I can tell. Prosecuting Clinton would have been special treatment. Not prosecuting her is normal treatment.
Uber may well provide valuable services, but it doesn't excuse what else the company does. If I were to produce numerous masterpieces of art, and only murdered a few people here and there, I'd be in prison for a long time.
Only if you're being stupid about it.
My house is a safe space in that regard, in that I do not tolerate intimidation or threats of violence and will enforce that as necessary (yeah, I'm willing to break the rule to enforce it). This doesn't mean I have to exclude people preemptively based on what they are. I've hosted liberals, conservatives, the odd anarchist (very odd, to be honest), assorted genders, and everybody goes along with that rule. I've got a fair amount of intellectual diversity going on, and discussion on a wide variety of topics. People bring up topics they're interested in to hear what others have to say.
It's easier to do this in a small group, of course, but it's possible to have a larger group with generally accepted rules.
If you think that's worth mentioning, you must be new here.
The exam is evidence of how things are right now, not how they were ten years or so ago.
Windows is a monopoly, in that a great many people have no practical alternative. Windows 10 is a demonstration of monopoly power.
Which one is going to do a better job? I'd assume you'd want to put together the best team you can. If this requires making it into a social group that gets things done, what's wrong with that?
Why don't you care how your coworkers feel about working together? If you're trying to hold a team together, particularly a volunteer team, you should be very interested in that. It's fairly well accepted that you can hire someone who's technically good but has a toxic personality, and that will actively hurt your team, so it's not an unknown concept.
Self-reported claims are facts. You ask people things, you write down your protocol and the answers, and you've got objective facts you can do science with. The self-reporting may be bad, in which case you need to improve your protocol, and the claims may be false, but people do science with potentially faulty instruments all the time.
Lots of diagnoses, particularly psychological, are based on self-reported claims. Most diagnostic processes start with the self-reported claims. They're good enough for practical use.
One person is reporting how she feels. The other is reporting how she feels someone else should feel, or how they wanted someone else to feel, or what she was trying to get across to someone else. This really isn't difficult.
There is a difference between feeling unwelcome and being unwelcome, but in this case we're talking about someone in a situation who will make the choice whether to leave or remain, and in that case how that person feels is more important.
Look. Some people have a deft touch with others. I don't. I get along fine anyway, since I do know etiquette well and am generally a good guy. However, if I want to approach someone socially there is a significant chance that I'll miscalculate and deliver my message badly, and I haven't found a way to get around that. I found this really frustrating when I was younger.
What GP said really had nothing to do with male vs. female. Any two people will have different interests in a relationship. Part of making marriage work is making sure your spouse gets enough of what he or she wants, and this will vary depending on a lot of things.
I spend about a quarter of my time at work, and many men work more hours than that. I meet women I like a lot there, even in a male-dominated area. If I weren't already married, I'd be interested in some of them as romantic partners.
Also, as an ASD geek, I find small talk unnatural, and I have an easier time getting to know people in a somewhat task-oriented environment (like the one I met my wife in). I have trouble reading subtle cues.
Actually, it is a problem for men. They typically have to face more rejection, and I'd suspect that the number of socially inept males that don't know how to initiate a possible romantic relationship is higher than the number of females in the same situation.
Historically, a fair number of women have adopted fake male names. In the US, it's generally legal to go by a name other than your legal one as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes. There's also the possibility of using initials instead of full names.
There are weaker and stronger people around, and I don't see that the weaker are any less deserving. They aren't, in my observation, less productive in general. The difference between what you said and "the strong will avoid preying on the weak only so long" is subtle at best.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that it's difficult to find what Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos think about things? We don't know their private thoughts, but we wouldn't if we went to a lecture by one of them anyway. It's easy enough to find what sorts of things they're likely to talk about, and what they're likely to say about them. It's reasonable to figure, knowing this, that they aren't going to be worth scheduling.
Wrong issue, but thanks for playing.
We're not talking about the sex ratio here. We're talking about the treatment of people. If everything were peachy, I'd still expect OSS projects to be male-heavy, since the field appears to attract more men than women. (I could be wrong here, of course. I don't actually know what would happen if everything were peachy.) If we treat some people badly and chase them away, we lose their contributions and deprive them of opportunities, and that's true regardless of gender. GP's point is that treating everyone better, regardless of gender, is likely to improve things, but there's still more hostility towards women than men.
I'm not so sure about that. This isn't the first time we've had high-tech militaries compared to what we had. Consider the introduction of indirect-fire artillery and radios and complicated vehicles. We dramatically expanded the size of the army before and during WWII using conscription while using more advanced technology than we'd had.
The goal of high tech is usually to make things more effective and ideally easier on the user, at the cost of greater initial cost. It may require a group of geniuses to devise a cool new device, but it may be easy for the average conscript to use.
I've heard a lot about the shortage of male nurses, although not so much babysitters.
Any person of any political persuasion is free to establish some sort of private discussion group that is restricted to some political slant. People all over the political spectrum do that. Is it your opinion that I should have the right to speak favorably of abortion rights in any Republican forum?
So, given all the whinging/whining/whatever directed at Obama, how was it possible to elect a Republican?
The electromagnetic spectrum is legally considered a limited public resource. ABC (well, its affiliates) use that particular public resource, and there are restrictions on what they are allowed to do. There are no corresponding limitations on broadcasts by other means, such as cable TV or YouTube, because they don't use such resources.