Would you find it more accurate to state that the Civil Rights Movement, by and large, sought to achieve that which was denied to them, while the modern college campus movements often seek to deny that which others may currently be allowed?
It's very rare that granting equal rights to some previously-excluded group doesn't involve restricting other peoples' rights in some ways. For example, ending employment discrimination on the basis of the amount of melanin in your skin inevitably restricts the right of employers to hire freely. One of the rare cases is opening up marriage rights (e.g. "miscegenation" or same-sex marriage) is quite unusual in that it's one of those rare situations where literally nobody else's rights are infringed.
I think that what's changed is that the stuff that's perceived to be denied is often more subtle (and hence, arguably, more insidious), and so the inevitable restrictions seem more petty by comparison.
Contrasting then to now, the Civil Rights Movement sought to be in clusive, while this current crop of movements seeks to be ex clusive.
That's a rewriting of history. The "civil rights movement" was not one group of people all of whom had the same agenda. Some elements of the movement were about absolute equality (notably, MLK was in favour of right for homosexual people), some were more about non-white people claiming power that previously only white people had (e.g. Robert F. Williams), and others had different agendas. Oh, and the non-violent wing of the civil rights movement did pay a lot of tribute to the self-defence wing, because the fear that black people would defend themselves against violence was (ironically) one of the things which made non-violent protests effective.
When I was at university in the 90s, it was a similar story. While there's less violence in today's activist movements (the WTO protests were a lifetime ago), it's a similar story now.
And at what point in Cleese's career has he ever done anything but? Satire and parody aren't intended to be inoffensive and in-controversial.
Like all the best comedians, Cleese has always obeyed the first rule of offensive comedy: never punch down.
Pick your favourite, most offensive, John Cleese routine. Now look at Michael Richards' infamous Laugh Factory rant. That is the difference.
Actually, Monty Python would often anticipate when something would cause offence and acknowledge it by doing the complaints themselves as part of the sketch. In one famous Cleese & Chapman sketch, they even had the audience storm the stage in protest.
This is about modern kids deciding that the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them.
Where the hell do you think these "modern kids" learned it from? Right now, we have frontrunner politicians running for high office on the platform that people with certain religious persuasions should be deported.
We have media pundits who use our precious bandwidth yelling as loud as they can that half of the population of America hates America. It was adults in power who taught them that certain people should be censored. To their credit, at least "modern kids" are using that tool in a good cause.
Some comment systems (e.g. stackoverflow) only let you edit for a limited amount of time. A minute seems enough to fix that one typo. That wouldn't be unreasonable, and presumably moderation would be suspended (or wiped, and the moderator gets their points back) if a post is edited.
I don't know what to do about replies during that time. Maybe give responders a notification and time to fix or even delete their response.
One possible way to do this might be the ability to collapse and expand subthreads as a whole. That way, you could examine the top-level comments only and decide based on that if you want to delve deeper or not.
The comments of mine which tend to attract the most "troll" mods are honestly-held opinions on the various merits of different series of Star Trek, a topic which comes up surprisingly often. I'm used to it by now.
The problem is that UEFI missed the KISS principal and is basically an OS itself.
That's kind of like complaining that most peripherals are computers themselves. Yes, it's an OS-lite, but it only has to run on one revision of one motherboard, and it doesn't have to do everything.
At least UEFI can be persuaded to get out of the way. I'd rather have UEFI than SMM any day.
There is an implicit false dichotomy there, namely "ancient design monolithic kernel" and "ancient-style microkernel".
But in the choice between Linux or BSD on the one hand, and Hurd on the other, that is the choice we're being asked to accept. Well, unless the L4 or Viengoos variants of Hurd come good.
Exactly. I know that Greyfox was making a joke, but anyone who has worked with sensors knows that intermittent anomalous readings are normal. Any sensor which doesn't produce anomalous readings almost certainly does the filtering internally.
...disregard it if it continues to exhibit faulty timing.
I'm not sure of the specs of block III, but in the case of block II, each satellite has three atomic clocks each (i.e. two hot spares) and the constellation as a whole has a few hot spare satellites (my memory is telling me four, but this may be wrong). However, this may not be a single-satellite failure.
All that means is that the questioning was conducted via a web site, as opposed to in person or over the phone. I think you may be making assumptions about how the participants were chosen. (Yes, the participants were chosen.)
Slashdot Mirror
Would you find it more accurate to state that the Civil Rights Movement, by and large, sought to achieve that which was denied to them, while the modern college campus movements often seek to deny that which others may currently be allowed?
It's very rare that granting equal rights to some previously-excluded group doesn't involve restricting other peoples' rights in some ways. For example, ending employment discrimination on the basis of the amount of melanin in your skin inevitably restricts the right of employers to hire freely. One of the rare cases is opening up marriage rights (e.g. "miscegenation" or same-sex marriage) is quite unusual in that it's one of those rare situations where literally nobody else's rights are infringed.
I think that what's changed is that the stuff that's perceived to be denied is often more subtle (and hence, arguably, more insidious), and so the inevitable restrictions seem more petty by comparison.
That's a rewriting of history. The "civil rights movement" was not one group of people all of whom had the same agenda. Some elements of the movement were about absolute equality (notably, MLK was in favour of right for homosexual people), some were more about non-white people claiming power that previously only white people had (e.g. Robert F. Williams), and others had different agendas. Oh, and the non-violent wing of the civil rights movement did pay a lot of tribute to the self-defence wing, because the fear that black people would defend themselves against violence was (ironically) one of the things which made non-violent protests effective.
When I was at university in the 90s, it was a similar story. While there's less violence in today's activist movements (the WTO protests were a lifetime ago), it's a similar story now.
And at what point in Cleese's career has he ever done anything but? Satire and parody aren't intended to be inoffensive and in-controversial.
Like all the best comedians, Cleese has always obeyed the first rule of offensive comedy: never punch down.
Pick your favourite, most offensive, John Cleese routine. Now look at Michael Richards' infamous Laugh Factory rant. That is the difference.
Actually, Monty Python would often anticipate when something would cause offence and acknowledge it by doing the complaints themselves as part of the sketch. In one famous Cleese & Chapman sketch, they even had the audience storm the stage in protest.
This is about modern kids deciding that the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them.
Where the hell do you think these "modern kids" learned it from? Right now, we have frontrunner politicians running for high office on the platform that people with certain religious persuasions should be deported.
We have media pundits who use our precious bandwidth yelling as loud as they can that half of the population of America hates America. It was adults in power who taught them that certain people should be censored. To their credit, at least "modern kids" are using that tool in a good cause.
Wow, there you go. It works for collapsing, but doesn't do the expected thing for expanding. But hey, it's something.
There's a reason why there isn't an edit button.
Some comment systems (e.g. stackoverflow) only let you edit for a limited amount of time. A minute seems enough to fix that one typo. That wouldn't be unreasonable, and presumably moderation would be suspended (or wiped, and the moderator gets their points back) if a post is edited.
I don't know what to do about replies during that time. Maybe give responders a notification and time to fix or even delete their response.
It doesn't help that half the world sees it a day late.
In Soviet Russia, Slashdot asks You.
Yes, edit button. I'll have one of those, please.
One possible way to do this might be the ability to collapse and expand subthreads as a whole. That way, you could examine the top-level comments only and decide based on that if you want to delve deeper or not.
Some sort of rating system for commenters would be nice. Maybe have the higher rated comments percolate to the top of the list.
We could call it "karma", and perhaps give all such comments an automatic +1.
The comments of mine which tend to attract the most "troll" mods are honestly-held opinions on the various merits of different series of Star Trek, a topic which comes up surprisingly often. I'm used to it by now.
Just run beta on top of systemd. Slashdot will improve no end.
I'm not sure why he's not being grilled pretty heavily right now.
Because 99% of the time, the process is to blame, not the person.
It easily can happen accidentally. The probability of a bug in your implementation of the Miller-Rabin test (for a general "you") is quite high.
Now look at the history here. The patch was submitted by someone who admitted "I don't have enough knowledge to implement the merge", and was accepted without any serious review. Looking at my own history of screwing up commits, it's fairly easy to see how this might have happened.
I'm just lucky that none of mine had implications that serious. There but for the grace of His Noodly Appendage...
The problem is that UEFI missed the KISS principal and is basically an OS itself.
That's kind of like complaining that most peripherals are computers themselves. Yes, it's an OS-lite, but it only has to run on one revision of one motherboard, and it doesn't have to do everything.
At least UEFI can be persuaded to get out of the way. I'd rather have UEFI than SMM any day.
Wow, you are easily almost a decade behind on the HURD soap opera.
Only Perl 6 rivals Hurd when it comes to how far behind you can be on the story.
It is probably a project to study the concept of operating systems.
You'd expect more papers to have come out of it, were that the case.
There is an implicit false dichotomy there, namely "ancient design monolithic kernel" and "ancient-style microkernel".
But in the choice between Linux or BSD on the one hand, and Hurd on the other, that is the choice we're being asked to accept. Well, unless the L4 or Viengoos variants of Hurd come good.
Exactly. I know that Greyfox was making a joke, but anyone who has worked with sensors knows that intermittent anomalous readings are normal. Any sensor which doesn't produce anomalous readings almost certainly does the filtering internally.
The "root cause" is that remote sensing is inherently noisy and you learn to live with it. All the cool kids now how to use a Kalman filter.
...disregard it if it continues to exhibit faulty timing.
I'm not sure of the specs of block III, but in the case of block II, each satellite has three atomic clocks each (i.e. two hot spares) and the constellation as a whole has a few hot spare satellites (my memory is telling me four, but this may be wrong). However, this may not be a single-satellite failure.
They were also interested in UFO enthusiast groups, because they were believed to be vulnerable to infiltration by foreign governments. True story.
The question asked in the survey was specifically about handguns.
But what if you have a cold, have been injured in the hands?
Then the gun will be useless to whoever takes it out of your cold, injured hands.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
And the "survey"? Web based.
All that means is that the questioning was conducted via a web site, as opposed to in person or over the phone. I think you may be making assumptions about how the participants were chosen. (Yes, the participants were chosen.)