Have you ever edited Wikipedia? There are no "Wikipedia submitters," and what you call "requires... to cite openly verifiable sources" amounts to someone coming along after the edit is already visible, putting up a "[citation needed]" link.
I don't think you know how Wikipedia actually works.
Except that this might expose Google to legal liability, as the platform on which fraudulent ads were served. IANAL, but I can't imagine a world where the advertise carrier (newspaper or Google) is completely innocent of whatever wrong was committed through the advertisement.
I blame the antifeatures. Hangout would be semi-usable, if it wasn't constantly trying to get me to invite people to Hangout, instead of sending them SMS like it knew I wanted to.
I've been using Yahoo (I got PO'd by Google's AMP a while back) and it's pretty decent. It's only about once a week or so when I can't find the result I was looking for in the first couple pages and I have to re-try the search in Google.
But eliminating women takes the artificialness of the approach to the next level. Either you have to eliminate all X-chromosome-carrying sperms (and I guess somehow you made sure your artificial eggs only carried X chromosome, unless it's somehow O.K. for an artificial egg to have Y chromosome), or you perform sex-selective abortions where all girls are killed at early age. All these are active measures that need to be taken to keep eliminating women from each generation. In any generation you stop taking these measures, women are re-introduced into your male-only society.
Eliminating men is marginally more natural. Once you have eliminated the Y chromosome, like eliminating polio, it does not get re-introduced into the society absent some overt effort by some group that regrets elimination of men.
P.S. I'm not saying eliminating either gender is good. I am just pointing out that the situation is not symmetric. It is objectively easier to eliminate men than women.
Let me rephrase it: you will never get the "woman" out of men---no matter how technologically advanced, our society will always have women; that's literally in our DNA. But you can get the "man" out of society. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe (the stuff of sci-fi), it is possible to have a technologically advanced society that only has women and no men anywhere---the structure of human DNA allows for that.
You are presuming that men are somehow necessary (so the ability to produce a boy is a good thing). I am challenging that presumption and instead think in this direction: which gender can be eliminated? Men can be; women cannot be.
P.S. I don't know if more women actually want boys. But preferences can change over time, and in any case, you can imagine a small society of women (again, the stuff of sci-fi) with ideological hatred of the male gender.
The key difference is this: the way X and Y chromosomes work, some of the children artificially produced from two men will be girls (and some---those with two Y chromosomes that survive---will be homicidal maniacs). But none of the children artificially produced from two women will be boys.
So, yes, I agree with OP. This could make men obsolete---but it won't quite ever make women obsolete.
I'm pretty sure they go by their acronym "EFF" alone (kinda like "KFC" and "SAT"), which doesn't stand for anything any more---which is quite fitting, because the organization itself doesn't stand for anything any more.
Yeah. Too many people are forgetting that endpoint-to-endpoint encryption doesn't protect the endpoints themselves. I think this push towards universal HTTPS is yet another security theater---it makes you feel securer than you ought to feel.
"Silicon Valley Libertarianism"? Change that to libertinism and you will start making sense.
Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires have stopped being libertarians many years ago. They are plain old liberals now, not "classical liberals."
Except one and the same driver can be driving for Lyft and Uber at the same time, choosing the most convenient passenger to pick up (or for that matter, someone can have both Uber and Lyft apps on their phone at the same time).
What Google and Amazon are doing is anticompetitive. It may not match with your carefully drawn definitions of net neutrality, but what they are doing is anticompetitive (they are leveraging their market power in one market segment to help their product in another segment), which is why to nontechnical people, this seems as wrong as violations of net neutrality principles.
On the other hand, how much should form-letter activism count? It's just deserts for people who waste other people's time, that they end up getting ignored.
Or maybe a simple test. You know, some basic facts and civic knowledge that any knowledgeable voter should demonstrate.
P.S. And of course, since we should not take away rights people already have, we will have to let anyone who has already voted continue to vote, regardless of their test result. Let's call it "grandfathering," like being grandfathering in your old unlimited AT&T plan when AT&T discontinues them.
Of course they do. Who does more for the economy: a worker at home in bed from a treatable condition, or that worker going to his job? Hmmm.
I could do a line-by-line "rebuttal" as you have done, but I simply ask you to consider this:
Who would be better motivated to do better and more work, a worker whose livelihood depends on how good a job he does, or one whose livelihood (or at least the "right" to live as well as anyone else does) is guaranteed either by the government or the union, regardless of what he does?
That's the whole premise of the argument between socialism and libertarianism (oh, that and the whole question of fundamental liberty, but that's philosophy; nothing practical about it).
Socialism tries to ignore human nature. Libertarianism tries to work with existing human nature. It's up to you to decide which is a more... practical endeavor. I've decided long ago that I shouldn't try to ignore the reality as socialists do.
P.S. BTW, even with all the supposed de-regulation, the U.S. financial sector was far, far from being "free market". For one, legislations like CRA practically forced mortgage lenders to take bad loans (I'm not talking about "minorities" specifically, I'm simply talking about those who couldn't afford the houses they bought). And even when we suppose that CRA had no bad unintended consequences on the financial sector, at this point we shouldn't spend public money on "bailout", because apparently some banks still managed to make good investments and they can carry us through. If anything, we should encourage (not pressure), deals like Chase's buyout of WaMu and keep government hands (and public funds) out of these purely private endeavors.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever edited Wikipedia? There are no "Wikipedia submitters," and what you call "requires ... to cite openly verifiable sources" amounts to someone coming along after the edit is already visible, putting up a "[citation needed]" link.
I don't think you know how Wikipedia actually works.
You are much too hopeful.
Except that this might expose Google to legal liability, as the platform on which fraudulent ads were served. IANAL, but I can't imagine a world where the advertise carrier (newspaper or Google) is completely innocent of whatever wrong was committed through the advertisement.
I see that you have never tried to build a self-contained survival bunker that can last for at least three years.
I blame the antifeatures. Hangout would be semi-usable, if it wasn't constantly trying to get me to invite people to Hangout, instead of sending them SMS like it knew I wanted to.
I've been using Yahoo (I got PO'd by Google's AMP a while back) and it's pretty decent. It's only about once a week or so when I can't find the result I was looking for in the first couple pages and I have to re-try the search in Google.
Next bombshell will be PowerPC distribution of Debian is not binary-compatible with x86 distribution.
Sounds like somebody has never seen Doctor Who.
There are no secret neonazi meetings for this.
And you know that ... because you were the minute keeper for the last national secret neonazi meeting and you didn't hear it come up?
Um, the books aren't canon. You heretic.
But eliminating women takes the artificialness of the approach to the next level. Either you have to eliminate all X-chromosome-carrying sperms (and I guess somehow you made sure your artificial eggs only carried X chromosome, unless it's somehow O.K. for an artificial egg to have Y chromosome), or you perform sex-selective abortions where all girls are killed at early age. All these are active measures that need to be taken to keep eliminating women from each generation. In any generation you stop taking these measures, women are re-introduced into your male-only society.
Eliminating men is marginally more natural. Once you have eliminated the Y chromosome, like eliminating polio, it does not get re-introduced into the society absent some overt effort by some group that regrets elimination of men.
P.S. I'm not saying eliminating either gender is good. I am just pointing out that the situation is not symmetric. It is objectively easier to eliminate men than women.
That's what everyone would worry about, until it actually happens and they realize that men were really the source of all the societal problems.
Let me rephrase it: you will never get the "woman" out of men---no matter how technologically advanced, our society will always have women; that's literally in our DNA. But you can get the "man" out of society. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe (the stuff of sci-fi), it is possible to have a technologically advanced society that only has women and no men anywhere---the structure of human DNA allows for that.
You are presuming that men are somehow necessary (so the ability to produce a boy is a good thing). I am challenging that presumption and instead think in this direction: which gender can be eliminated? Men can be; women cannot be.
P.S. I don't know if more women actually want boys. But preferences can change over time, and in any case, you can imagine a small society of women (again, the stuff of sci-fi) with ideological hatred of the male gender.
The key difference is this: the way X and Y chromosomes work, some of the children artificially produced from two men will be girls (and some---those with two Y chromosomes that survive---will be homicidal maniacs). But none of the children artificially produced from two women will be boys.
So, yes, I agree with OP. This could make men obsolete---but it won't quite ever make women obsolete.
One of the "various reasons" being "lack of rebroadcast rights". Do you read your own link? It's like the second sentence on the page.
I'm pretty sure they go by their acronym "EFF" alone (kinda like "KFC" and "SAT"), which doesn't stand for anything any more---which is quite fitting, because the organization itself doesn't stand for anything any more.
Yeah. Too many people are forgetting that endpoint-to-endpoint encryption doesn't protect the endpoints themselves. I think this push towards universal HTTPS is yet another security theater---it makes you feel securer than you ought to feel.
"Silicon Valley Libertarianism"? Change that to libertinism and you will start making sense.
Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires have stopped being libertarians many years ago. They are plain old liberals now, not "classical liberals."
Who is this "Rey" and exactly what are you trying to "spoil"?
My guess: Control-V while cursor was at a wrong spot (Ctrl-V'd text starts with "Rey" and ends with "Obi-wan").
Also, lack of proofreading; general problem with being a moron.
Except one and the same driver can be driving for Lyft and Uber at the same time, choosing the most convenient passenger to pick up (or for that matter, someone can have both Uber and Lyft apps on their phone at the same time).
What Google and Amazon are doing is anticompetitive. It may not match with your carefully drawn definitions of net neutrality, but what they are doing is anticompetitive (they are leveraging their market power in one market segment to help their product in another segment), which is why to nontechnical people, this seems as wrong as violations of net neutrality principles.
On the other hand, how much should form-letter activism count? It's just deserts for people who waste other people's time, that they end up getting ignored.
Or maybe a simple test. You know, some basic facts and civic knowledge that any knowledgeable voter should demonstrate.
P.S. And of course, since we should not take away rights people already have, we will have to let anyone who has already voted continue to vote, regardless of their test result. Let's call it "grandfathering," like being grandfathering in your old unlimited AT&T plan when AT&T discontinues them.
Not to mention ADA. If you operate at a big enough scale, you have a legal obligation to make your properties handicapped accessible, when feasible.
Of course they do. Who does more for the economy: a worker at home in bed from a treatable condition, or that worker going to his job? Hmmm.
I could do a line-by-line "rebuttal" as you have done, but I simply ask you to consider this:
Who would be better motivated to do better and more work, a worker whose livelihood depends on how good a job he does, or one whose livelihood (or at least the "right" to live as well as anyone else does) is guaranteed either by the government or the union, regardless of what he does?
That's the whole premise of the argument between socialism and libertarianism (oh, that and the whole question of fundamental liberty, but that's philosophy; nothing practical about it).
Socialism tries to ignore human nature. Libertarianism tries to work with existing human nature. It's up to you to decide which is a more ... practical endeavor. I've decided long ago that I shouldn't try to ignore the reality as socialists do.
P.S. BTW, even with all the supposed de-regulation, the U.S. financial sector was far, far from being "free market". For one, legislations like CRA practically forced mortgage lenders to take bad loans (I'm not talking about "minorities" specifically, I'm simply talking about those who couldn't afford the houses they bought). And even when we suppose that CRA had no bad unintended consequences on the financial sector, at this point we shouldn't spend public money on "bailout", because apparently some banks still managed to make good investments and they can carry us through. If anything, we should encourage (not pressure), deals like Chase's buyout of WaMu and keep government hands (and public funds) out of these purely private endeavors.