Yeah, because the federal US system does a really good job of allowing individual states to preserve their independence and minimize big, power-grabbing, central government.
However, it is her burden to try to understand the world around her. There is no burden to society for her being alive, but I am certain she would very much enjoy learning beyond her current abilities if there was such a genetic treatment to reverse her condition.
Sure, but I'd say that's a burden entirely imposed by her condition, whereas you said, "society places a much, much larger burden on her". I don't see any burden placed purposely by society.
"Retards" is not the original word for the condition
Quoth the Wikipedia article you cite,
The origin of the word "retard" comes from intensive prefix re- and the Latin word tardus meaning "slow," e.g., being tardy. Mental retardation thus derives from the idea that someone is mentally slow. So it basically means 'really slow' in Latin; I'd say that was an original word, unless the Romans 'copied' it.
offensive to most. The term was used by the poster either out of insult or ingnorance, in either case it wasn't a very kind word to use and I felt justified in making that known.
So I guess you used it in ignorance when you said she was mentally retarded.
The original post was trying to provide examples to bolster his case against disorders and justifying his stance by using "societal burden" as justification. In fact the poster stated "(retards, etc.)" which clearly indicates that he would include others in a list. I was merely citing an additional example of a condition that most would agree is truly a societal burden. It was not part of a counter argument.
It looked like it was, because you said, "I don't think that "retards", as you so kindly refer to people like my sister, are as great a burden as those who seek to committ homicide." - implying that the OP had said those who seek to commit homicide placed a lesser burden on society.
Rather, society places a much, much larger burden on her because of her condition. She is gainfully employed and pays taxes, what more would society want from anyone?
I don't see what extra burden society places on here, especially if she's employed; care to explain?
I don't think that "retards", as you so kindly refer to people like my sister
It's the original word for the condition, and doesn't have to be used as an insult; it wasn't here.
are as great a burden as those who seek to committ homicide.
The GP never said that they were, so that's a strawman.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how this would work with medical insurance. Surely this is one of the areas where genes really *DO* have a *LOT* to do with the risk you pose to the company having to payout. What are medical insurance companies going to do if they can't discriminate on genes, offer everyone the same price? Aren't blacks more likely to to contract certain things like meningitis, and whites other things (I'm no expert here:-P)?
I don't quite understand this; is it illegal in the US to charge somebody different amounts for car (or even life) insurance based on their gender? I'm going to assume it isn't, because it isn't in the UK. If you can discriminate on gender (how is that not genetic), why can't you discriminate on other genetics?
We *really* need a credible third party in this country. *sigh*
Not quite. You need massive reform of your electoral system to allow a plethora of parties to have a fighting chance at getting representation, and if none of them are any good, a low barrier to entry for any people wishing to form a new party.
A single 'third party' under the current system would quickly be swallowed up by bribery, as the current 2 have been.
Hardware player keys can be individually revoked, at least up to a point, making them largely useless for pirates as they can be safely revoked without affecting any other units than the one that was hacked.
So, the logical target would be the largest, most difficult one to revoke - the X-Box?
However, future discs will use a new Processing Key, and that one that's around on the internet won't work... so the hackers will need to go back and sniff/debug an updated software player to figure out the new Processing Key.
Doesn't that mean all current HD-DVD players will be unable to play future HD-DVDs too? (at least without a firmware update)
Isn't that a dangerous precedent to set, though? They could just issue a new, very big key, that can be used to represent some small copyrighted work, like a logo or something.
Not making your website accessible to disabled people is discriminatory and therefore illegal. It's analogous to a situation where you owned a store but didn't allow black people to shop there.
That's so ridiciulous I'm not sure that you're not trolling, but I'll reply anyway.
No, it's not at all analogous to that. If you prevent black people from shopping there, you're actively discriminating. If they can't for some other reason, you're passively discriminating. Personally, I think passive discrimination (with a good reason - eg. a step that stops disableds from entering the store), should be legal. Look, you're the owner, I don't see why you should be required to expend time and money to provide access to other people if you don't feel it's a worthwhile business decision. Again, this is *passive* discrimination. You'd love everyone to be able to visit, but there is unfortunately some barrier to some people, which you don't feel the demolition of would provide the extra business to cover the cost.
In the case of websites, the barrier is the lack of ALT text and other accessibility features. The webmaster feels that adding those features isn't worth their while (or just fucking doesn't want to do it, as is their right in a free society!!!), and *no way* should they be forced to do so. It's one thing to detect that someone's black and ban them; it's another to provide identical access to everyone, and then claim that's illegal because not everyone can use that provision as it was intended. Sorry, but to say that is retarded.
scramble to build a web browser that was a first in the world of Microsoft: it was standards compliant. Okay, actually, it wasn't
You can say that again; for most of the referenced table, it's a case of spot-the-difference between IE6 and IE7. Always makes me laugh when people say IE7 is standards-compliant.
What is the point of developing standards compliant, accessible websites if the most used browser in the market screws it up without crappy hacks? Oh, wait.. Notgetting sued is a pretty good reason, I guess.
Wow... what planet is that person on?
There are a lot of strange comments on Derek's and Molly's posts from people who believe it should be up to every company to decide whether its website should be accessible or not. And anyone would think the company didn't have to provide a website at all!
But I would expect that the host's information, which they replace your info with, would cause them to be notified by authorities when the authorities wanted to deal with the domain. They would either just close you down immediately or forward such notices on to you... so notices from authorities would still get through.
If everyone was using OSS encryption, en masse, how would the government enforce these two points? Mind you, I do realise that the US has tragically jailed huge numbers of people for using cannabis. I guess I wouldn't put much past a government that's retarded and evil enough to do that.:-(
Why would it be a problem? Only private keys ca be used to decrypt data. Unless you were concerned about the man-in-the-middle just rewriting the data to say something else, but it's hard to imagine how they'd do that to a live voice conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
The film industry has quite a few odd nicknames for things...the trailers that house the actors are called "honey wagons."
I thought that was what they called the previews...
They are usually free, and from what I hear you're not allowed to bring purses/bags inside, as you might be hiding a recording device.
Phew. Thank god my trenchcoat of concealed assorted firearms will let me take out anyone who slips through that net.
Why do they do that? If the screening audiences think it's a pile of crap, do they not release the movie?
Just wait till the oil and water start running out.
One of these two does not belong in this sentence.
Yeah, because the federal US system does a really good job of allowing individual states to preserve their independence and minimize big, power-grabbing, central government.
Sure, but I'd say that's a burden entirely imposed by her condition, whereas you said, "society places a much, much larger burden on her". I don't see any burden placed purposely by society.
"Retards" is not the original word for the condition
Quoth the Wikipedia article you cite, The origin of the word "retard" comes from intensive prefix re- and the Latin word tardus meaning "slow," e.g., being tardy. Mental retardation thus derives from the idea that someone is mentally slow. So it basically means 'really slow' in Latin; I'd say that was an original word, unless the Romans 'copied' it.
offensive to most. The term was used by the poster either out of insult or ingnorance, in either case it wasn't a very kind word to use and I felt justified in making that known.
So I guess you used it in ignorance when you said she was mentally retarded.
The original post was trying to provide examples to bolster his case against disorders and justifying his stance by using "societal burden" as justification. In fact the poster stated "(retards, etc.)" which clearly indicates that he would include others in a list. I was merely citing an additional example of a condition that most would agree is truly a societal burden. It was not part of a counter argument.
It looked like it was, because you said, "I don't think that "retards", as you so kindly refer to people like my sister, are as great a burden as those who seek to committ homicide." - implying that the OP had said those who seek to commit homicide placed a lesser burden on society.
Rather, society places a much, much larger burden on her because of her condition. She is gainfully employed and pays taxes, what more would society want from anyone?
I don't see what extra burden society places on here, especially if she's employed; care to explain?
I don't think that "retards", as you so kindly refer to people like my sister
It's the original word for the condition, and doesn't have to be used as an insult; it wasn't here.
are as great a burden as those who seek to committ homicide.
The GP never said that they were, so that's a strawman.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how this would work with medical insurance. Surely this is one of the areas where genes really *DO* have a *LOT* to do with the risk you pose to the company having to payout. What are medical insurance companies going to do if they can't discriminate on genes, offer everyone the same price? Aren't blacks more likely to to contract certain things like meningitis, and whites other things (I'm no expert here :-P)?
I don't quite understand this; is it illegal in the US to charge somebody different amounts for car (or even life) insurance based on their gender? I'm going to assume it isn't, because it isn't in the UK. If you can discriminate on gender (how is that not genetic), why can't you discriminate on other genetics?
We *really* need a credible third party in this country. *sigh*
Not quite. You need massive reform of your electoral system to allow a plethora of parties to have a fighting chance at getting representation, and if none of them are any good, a low barrier to entry for any people wishing to form a new party.
A single 'third party' under the current system would quickly be swallowed up by bribery, as the current 2 have been.
We elected a leader, and he became a Bush follower and sold us out.
Speak for yourself.
Hardware player keys can be individually revoked, at least up to a point, making them largely useless for pirates as they can be safely revoked without affecting any other units than the one that was hacked.
So, the logical target would be the largest, most difficult one to revoke - the X-Box?
However, future discs will use a new Processing Key, and that one that's around on the internet won't work ... so the hackers will need to go back and sniff/debug an updated software player to figure out the new Processing Key.
Doesn't that mean all current HD-DVD players will be unable to play future HD-DVDs too? (at least without a firmware update)
Isn't that a dangerous precedent to set, though? They could just issue a new, very big key, that can be used to represent some small copyrighted work, like a logo or something.
Virtual rape is a crime as much as stealing a car in GTA is a felony and as much as killing an MMORPG character in PVE is a murder.
Jack Thompson: "Now you're gettin' it!"
And if you think both are wrong and that the world is not made up of binary issues, support neither.
What do you think the matrix is coded in?
Not making your website accessible to disabled people is discriminatory and therefore illegal. It's analogous to a situation where you owned a store but didn't allow black people to shop there.
That's so ridiciulous I'm not sure that you're not trolling, but I'll reply anyway.
No, it's not at all analogous to that. If you prevent black people from shopping there, you're actively discriminating. If they can't for some other reason, you're passively discriminating. Personally, I think passive discrimination (with a good reason - eg. a step that stops disableds from entering the store), should be legal. Look, you're the owner, I don't see why you should be required to expend time and money to provide access to other people if you don't feel it's a worthwhile business decision. Again, this is *passive* discrimination. You'd love everyone to be able to visit, but there is unfortunately some barrier to some people, which you don't feel the demolition of would provide the extra business to cover the cost.
In the case of websites, the barrier is the lack of ALT text and other accessibility features. The webmaster feels that adding those features isn't worth their while (or just fucking doesn't want to do it, as is their right in a free society!!!), and *no way* should they be forced to do so. It's one thing to detect that someone's black and ban them; it's another to provide identical access to everyone, and then claim that's illegal because not everyone can use that provision as it was intended. Sorry, but to say that is retarded.
scramble to build a web browser that was a first in the world of Microsoft: it was standards compliant. Okay, actually, it wasn't
You can say that again; for most of the referenced table, it's a case of spot-the-difference between IE6 and IE7. Always makes me laugh when people say IE7 is standards-compliant.
Wow... what planet is that person on? There are a lot of strange comments on Derek's and Molly's posts from people who believe it should be up to every company to decide whether its website should be accessible or not. And anyone would think the company didn't have to provide a website at all!
I understand why they wish to compare it to Firefox, but there are other browsers out there.
Any major opensource ones?
But I would expect that the host's information, which they replace your info with, would cause them to be notified by authorities when the authorities wanted to deal with the domain. They would either just close you down immediately or forward such notices on to you... so notices from authorities would still get through.
Sod the takedown, what about getting the TATTOO ITSELF?!!
I know you're trolling, but anyway...
I'd love to see how all those millions of guns stand up to a few thousand Indian/Pakistani/Russian nukes.
If everyone was using OSS encryption, en masse, how would the government enforce these two points? Mind you, I do realise that the US has tragically jailed huge numbers of people for using cannabis. I guess I wouldn't put much past a government that's retarded and evil enough to do that. :-(
Why would it be a problem? Only private keys ca be used to decrypt data. Unless you were concerned about the man-in-the-middle just rewriting the data to say something else, but it's hard to imagine how they'd do that to a live voice conversation.