That seems to have been the POV of Stephen Paddock (Mandelay Bay shooter) as well. But the philosophy doesn't serve the needs of modern civilization, as Thomas Hobbes and others pointed out at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
To clarify, my post was intended as sarcasm. Also, my argument wasn't supposed to be about whether or not we should have complete freedom, but only that freedom isn't the same thing as the absence of rules. i.e. We need rules to ensure people respect each other's freedom.
This is false equivalence. You haven't shown anything relevant to what he was saying, just made unrelated ridiculous claims that are presumably meant as sarcasm.
The claim I was responding to, was that if a licence has any rules, then it is not free. My (yes, sarcastic) response is intended to point out the absurdity of equating freedom to the lack of rules.
And this is just another example of "We absolutely believe in freedom --- except when we don't"
If you truly believe in Free Society (free meaning "freedom") then you reject the law because it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with forcing specific beliefs on citizens. Actually, if you truly believe in freedom you reject ANY law except one that contains exactly one sentence:
Imagine if it HAD been a joke, and the family sued the pants off the hospital for denying treatment to their family member without a formal DNR request?
Imagine they did resuscitate, and the note was serious, and the family sued the pants off the hospital for the infliction of years of unwanted pain and suffering. Or just imagine the hospital caused years of unwanted pain and suffering, and wasn't sued.
Honestly, I think it is reasonable to expect that if you have a tattoo saying you don't want to be resuscitated, then people might think that you don't want to be resuscitated. If I was sitting on the jury, I would side with the hospital staff, no question.
I bet both sides have paid almost as much to their Attorneys, staff, legal fees, investigations, etc. as either stand to get from the lawsuit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the legal costs for both sides were four times higher than the potential damages for infringement. If we exclude patents on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, the overall cost of patent litigation to the defendant was around four times the overall profit from patent licensing in 1999, and rising (see p. 15 of the reference below). (I know design patents are different, but this is the most relevant study I know of.)
Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J. (2008) Patent failure
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Companies do NOT have policies regarding open source, so in fact they DON'T have a way of checking for issues. The article is not saying using open source is risky, or anything like that (which is how many here read it), but that you must have a POLICY regarding open source so you can remain in control of your systems. You can't just have people (admins or not) installing anything they want willy-nilly and stay in control.
Companies need policies that cover software, including licensing compliance and updates. It's not at all clear from the article that companies need policies to manage risks associated specifically with open-source software, because the article doesn't even attempt to compare risks associated with open-source software with those associated with closed-source software. Without doing a comparison, and pointing to relevant differences, it seems a bit like arguing that companies need policies for black employees, or that they need policies for white employees, without considering whether one set of policies might be enough to cover both.
Did you read the article? Or even the summary? They are not claiming that open source is riskier than closed source.
No, it doesn't say that explicitly, but since it talks at length about there being risks with open-source software, without even mentioning that there are also risks with closed-source software (which seems very relevant, since besides building in house, these are the two options), it does rather seem to be implying it. It strikes me as dishonest. Essentially lying by omission, I think.
On the other hand, closed-source software generally requires approvals, money, licenses, etc, so the company is at least aware of the use of the software.
Yes, I suppose someone approves the purchase of licenses for closed-source software, and someone sees the purchase on the balance sheet at some point. I'm not convinced this will significantly improve the chances of regular of updates, though. If the people who approve the purchase, and/or see it on the balance sheet, are supposed to be responsible for the administration of the systems running the software, I think they'll most likely already have been aware that the software was being installed, and set up procedures for updates, if they're appropriately concerned about updates (and if not, they won't do it anyway). If the people who approve the purchase, and/or see it on the balance sheet aren't supposed to be responsible for the administration of the systems, then I'm not sure they're likely to give much thought to procedures for installing updates. Also, going the other way, updates of closed-source software may be delayed because of budget constraints.
other than niche open-source hardware laptops... is there a market?
I'd guess it'll probably become ubiquitous in devices that are either very small or very large, but won't make much of a dent in the PC market (where x86 is already entrenched) or the tablet/phone market (where ARM is already entrenched). Kind of like how we've got the Linux kernel on supercomputers and servers, tablets, phones, watches, routers, etc., but not so much on PCs, where MS Windows was already entrenched.
I think I remember a video from one of the people involved in RISC-V saying that it was originally just intended for use in courses about CPU design. They kept revising it whenever a PhD student figured out a better way of doing something. Then they started getting calls from people in India asking "Why do you keep changing the spec?" It was being used as an embedded processor in special purpose chips. Nvidia is planning to use it as an embedded processor in their GPUs, apparently (replacing their in-house processor "Falcon"). So RISC-V's already making inroads here.
Google's apparently interested in it for their servers too. At that scale, the savings from higher efficiency could offset research and development costs. I think RISC-V will probably take over server farms and supercomputers eventually.
For PCs, I think you're right, it'll probably be a niche market.
Microsoft's "shared source" under which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the harsh restrictions of the BSD license.
Although the.NET licensing was seriously shady in the past, it's actually licensed under the MIT licence now (which is much like the BSD licence).
I don't think MS did this out of the goodness of their hearts. IMO, their initial BS faux free licensing wasn't fooling anyone, they weren't taking as much market share as they hoped from the incumbent Java (which is looking less free of late), Mono was breaking into their walled garden, and then Apple came out with their own walled garden, Swift. I think MS has switched from playing offence to playing defence here. i.e. I think they've given up on trying to screw people over with.NET, and decided to settle for trying to prevent people from being screwed over with Oracle Java or Apple Swift.
Regardless of MS's motives, however,.NET is actually free now.
Personally, I like the title bar to have an icon on the left, with the title immediately next to it (left aligned), because it resembles the way the file appears when viewed in a list of files. Therefore, I prefer the close button on the right.
Of course, the icon and title on the window should be that of the file that is displayed, not the program used to display it. The icon and title of the program should be at the very top left of the screen, on its menu bar. It's an easy, logical standard that allows the users to quickly grasp the difference between the file displayed and the program displaying it.
Although it is an annual rent which is going to turn off a lot of people I now consider it a regular business related sense such as dry cleaning or a commute-capable car or for that matter taxes on income. If you want to be a grown up there are things you have to pay for.
I'd agree it's like an income tax, but it's a regressive tax to an unelected organisation, and on top of that, everything you use it for can be monitored and controlled by them. It's not a decision I would want to make. I don't condemn you for it, given the circumstances, but I hope you recognise that the circumstances aren't ideal.
Damn, that was depressing reading. At least the Huffington Post article was pulled, I guess. I note though that the compilers of the list specifically decided to look for violence from only one side, which I think is unfortunate, because it will necessarily paint a one-sided picture, whether or not the violence is actually one sided.
I'm not very well informed about news from other countries, and didn't know about any of this stuff. I did follow the USA election though, and recall something about a group calling themselves the 1%, or similar, who, I think, were calling for violence if the election was rigged, and that in combination with, I believe, Donald Trump suggesting that if he didn't win the election, then it must be rigged, sounded like bad news to me.
Also, I think that what I was responding to, "Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican. Just wait till we start shooting back.", is also bordering on a call for violence, and while that's not as bad as actual violence, or a direct call for violence, it's still not a particularly good thing, and I don't think it's unreasonable to call it out.
I wonder if there's any increase of support on the left (or in the Supreme Court, if the decision can be revisited there) for allowing peaceful secession. If it can't be achieved through the Supreme Court, it might be done through a constitutional amendment, with sufficient support. I dunno.
I don't think I was clouding the issue, I think I was looking for support for the claim, although perhaps I need to back up, and ask what you think the claim even means.
"Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican." suggests to me reports rolling in month after month of Republican congressmen shot by left wingers, and I expect I would have heard if this was the case. Does it suggest less to you?
Thinking about the bare minimum the statement could possibly mean, surely there must be at least two left wingers who shot Republican congressmen, and at least two Republican congressmen who were shot (since plurals were used in both cases)? "Now" implies recent. This is a less clear-cut term, but is it reasonable to say it would be stretching the definition of "now" in this context to refer to more than the last decade?
I had done a quick Internet search and found a couple of Republicans assassinated in the last 5 years, and thought that might have been what the claim was based on, but it turns out they were assassinated by another Republican.
Doing another search, I find Steve Scalise shot (but not killed) by James Hodgkinson. (I'm sure this was big news in the USA, but as I've previously said, I don't live in the USA.) Were there more shootings, or do you think this one alone justifies the claim?
If there was one Democrat congressman shot by a Republican, would you take it as sufficient basis for the claim "Right wingers now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Democrats.", or would you think it was an over-generalisation?
Interesting list you have there. Let me add some to it....
OK. So let's look into the Republicans, Mark Hasse and Mike McLelland:
Mark Hasse was shot and killed while walking in the 100 block of East Grove Street in Kaufman...
the bodies of Kaufman County Criminal District Attorney Michael "Mike" McLelland, 63, and his wife Cynthia, 65, were found in their home...
Eric Lyle Williams and his wife Kim Lene Williams[7] were arrested for all three murders. Kaufman County murders
What are Eric Williams' political affiliations?
[Williams] argued at pretrial hearings that he was the victim of a political vendetta. He'd supported McLelland's opponent, Rick Harrison, he said. Williams signed a campaign flier... raising doubt about [McLelland's] Republican credentials during McLelland's unsuccessful 2006 run for district attorney. Eric Williams, Suspect in Kaufman County Killings
It looks like both the Republicans on the list were killed by another Republican. So which statement does all of this best support?
Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican.
or
I suspect this is something of an over-generalisation.
Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican. Just wait till we start shooting back.
I suspect this is something of an over-generalisation. I don't live in the USA, but looking at the List of assassinated American politicians on Wikipedia, for those since 2000 (excluding the three that don't have listed party affiliations):
Derwin Brown, Democratic, 2000
James E. Davis, Democratic, 2003
Bill Gwatney, Democratic, 2008
Mark Hasse, Republican, 2013
Mike McLelland, Republican, 2013
Clementa C. Pinckney, Democratic, 2015
It would seem inaccurate to suggest that the USA politicians assassinated in recent years have been overwhelmingly Republican.
With every bit of entertainment available to everyone around the world at a moment's notice, why would anyone in this ADHD age want to watch a man sitting at a desk, doing nothing, and saying nothing, for FOUR MINUTES?
I watched it while listening to Yakety Sax, as suggested elsewhere, and the experience compared favourably to sitting through Rogue One for over 2 hours (the last movie I went to). The best part of that was when Darth Vader said "Be careful not to choke on your aspirations", while using the force to choke someone, because I took the opportunity to laugh very loudly and say "Oh, that's good. I wonder if anyone else got that."
... people who push the GPL is are a bunch of douche-bag assholes.
Are you saying that you think it is fine for author to prevent copying, unless they allow copying on the proviso that those who copy also allow copying?
The key here is that most of the people who probably contributed to the project didn't want it GPL but it was the only project in town.
There may well be contributors who wanted to make a proprietary derivative that locked in users, but I dare say there were none who wanted someone else to make a proprietary derivate that locked in users.
Anyway, this is rapidly becoming a moot point. If you get your users to access stuff "in the cloud", then you can use all the GPL code you like (AGPL aside), and never have to release a line of source.
More people use MS Windows than Linux for the same reason that more people use English than Esperanto. Not because it's better, but because it's entrenched in society. MS-DOS for the IBM PC wasn't remarkably good. What was remarkable about it was that it hacked together very quickly. Copyright gave monopoly control and massive profits to whoever got something out the door first in an emerging market. (Although control over "the desktop" is now becoming less important than control over "the cloud".)
Except that penises don't work that way. One of the main reason that men who are raped by men don't report is because they're confused or embarrassed because they got an erection or even ejaculated.
This is news to me, but okay, I'm willing to accept that it's theoretically possible for a woman to physically arouse a man who is not attracted to her, by somehow forcibly stimulating his anus. This isn't a skill she'd be able to develop with a willing partner, however, since they would be aroused anyway. Nor do I expect it would be easy to find some kind of how-to guide, or join a gang of women who do this. And she couldn't have learned it as personal experience from being a victim (being the wrong gender). Without some kind of inside knowledge, I think she'd have to essentially take a punt, and hope to strike it lucky, which doesn't seem like a very empowering situation. She'd have to take the risk that, despite her best efforts, she might fall flat on her face, and if she's willing to do that, then it's easier to hit on a guy in a bar. And she'd have to be okay dealing with a man's anus, when it's the penis she wants. A woman raping a man still seems much less likely to me than a man raping a woman, or a man raping a man. (At least if we are talking about forced rather than coerced, and the victim is not attracted to the attacker.)
if you could just turn it off with willpower, why would premature ejaculation ever be a thing? Why would teenagers have to carry things in front of themselves on occasion?
No, I don't think men can do that. (Or at least I can't.) I just don't think I would feel aroused while being attacked, even by someone I was attracted to. I think I would probably feel frightened and humiliated.
we're better off with people who disagree but have open minds and are willing to listen than with people who all mindlessly agree. I tip my hat to you, sir.
Okay, thanks.:-)
You girlfriend wants to get pregnant and you're not ready yet, your ex wants to get back at you, she's mad at your girlfriend, she's mad that you turned her down - sexual assault it isn't usually just about sex, it's sex and power.
What if you're sick or injured or drunk or high?
Or what if she threatens you? She'll divorce you and say you molested the kids. She can call the cops and say you tried to rape her (and even if the case if thrown out quickly, it can still be devastating). And if you physically resist, that's great - until she get injured (even slightly), then the story will be that you attacked her.
Okay, maybe. It does sound a bit more plausible to me if it's a partner or ex-partner, who knows the victim is attracted to them, especially if the victim is somehow incapacitated, other than by being physically overpowered, in a way that allows them to still be aroused. I can easily imagine that, if I was, say laid up in a bed with multiple broken limbs, an ex-partner would have little trouble forcing themselves on me against my will (if no-one else was around to stop them). This is a pretty specific situation, though. For drunk or high, okay, in situations that it would be considered rape if it happened to a woman. For threats though, again, I suspect I might find this unarousing (especially if the threat was that she'd say I molested the kids).
I guess this is partly speculation, having never actually been in this specific situation. I have been verbally abused by my partner though, and received (comparatively minor, and more veiled) threats. And though I am physically attracted to my partner, I certainly haven't been aroused in these situations.
I guess though, if I had been having an affair, and my lover threatened to tell my wife about it if it didn't continue, that might not be unarousing (especially if it was accompanied by something like "I love you so much, and I know you really love me, an
You're missing the damn point. The woman gets a pro choice pass. If she gets pregnant, she can kill the kid. The man gets no such choice. He will be forced at gunpoint to support a child he doesn't want. The abortion makes the supposedly asymmetrical symmetric again, so I reiterate my point: if you're going to be pro choice, don't be a fucking hypocrite about it.
Reposting something I posted elsewhere:
I think it's a mind, not a body, that defines a person. One body is usually associated with one mind. However if we think about (or postulate) cases where this isn't the case, I think it becomes obvious that it's the mind that's important, and the body is just a vessel.
e.g. We think of Conjoint/Siamese twins as twins, two people, not one person, because there are two minds, despite there being only one body. If a person is decapitated, they are dead and gone, regardless of whether their body could be kept on life support, because it is the mind that is important not the body, and the mind is gone. Considering the hypothetical situation in "body swap" stories like Freaky Friday, we would say that the people are in different bodies, not that the people have different minds in them, because it is the mind, not the body, that defines the person.
There can't be a mind until after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks after fertilisation), because connections don't begin to form in the cerebral cortex until then, so until then there is just an empty vessel, IMHO.
As to abortion making the situation symmetrical again, no it doesn't.
Men have contraceptive options. They can have a vasectomy and/or wear a condom. Women have no right to force men to do either of these things. These are men's choices to make, because they involve men's bodies. A woman could refuse to have sex with a man because he hasn't done these things, however.
Women have contraceptive options, and also have the option of an abortion. Men have no right to force women to do these things. These are women's choices to make, because they involve women's bodies. A man could refuse to have sex with a woman because she hasn't used contraception. If it comes to a woman choosing whether or not to have an abortion, however, it's a bit late for the man to decide he didn't want to have sex.
First, wanting to have sex isn't the same as consent. Men really do turn down women for sex, even when they're turned on - you don't have to be a slave to your emotions, even if that's what's expected of you.
No, I don't have to be a slave to my emotions, but the suggested situation, a woman that I find attractive attacking me, and forcing me to have sex with her, just doesn't sound very plausible to me. I guess, partly, I'd wonder, if she's attractive, why does she feel the need to force anyone to have sex with her? Partly, I suspect that being attacked would ruin the mood for me, thus rendering the exercise futile. (Partly, too, I'm not sure I would be attracted to a woman who was bigger and stronger than me enough that she could overpower me, but perhaps that's just personal taste.)
Second, erections are reflexive - hormones, vibration, or just falling asleep can cause erections. If nothing else, there's pressure on the prostate... I guess what I'm saying is that if boys in an African war zone can get erections when forced to have sex with their own mothers in front of the psychos that just butchered their dad, I'm pretty sure there are less extreme examples.
I don't know about what you're referring to, and I still find it difficult to imagine. But okay, just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm fine with men not having to pay child support if a jury finds the woman guilty of rape (including statutory rape, and all the same rules that apply in the converse situation).
We shouldn't ever just take someone's word, but if a man gets his girlfriend on tape admitting that she stopped taking birth control without telling him in order to get pregnant and make him marry her, I think that should play some role in how responsibility is meted out.
Fair enough.
And I'm pointing out that in our legal system almost nothing is a 'good enough' reason: In some US states there are men paying child support because the mother chose them at random and the man missed the single mailed summons. The court says they're the father by default, and the first they hear about it is when their wages get garnished.
Okay. I don't live in the US, so I'll take your word on it.
So even if our lists of what's 'good enough' don't align exactly we should still be able to agree that something should be on it.
I'm not going to argue with that.
The rest was just an attempt to point out our biases - ones that run so deep that our entire vocabulary changes when we stop talking about what she should do and start talking about what he should do. If we can't admit to those, how are we going to come to a fair and just conclusion?
In general, I think there's often biased language where there's disagreement. Not that this isn't a problem, but I don't think it's a problem unique to this situation.
Jumping out of the bushes and raping him is probably quite rare, though I should mention that that situation is rather rare for women as well. But sex while too drunk or high to consent, or passed out - that might be a bit more common.
But we're getting off the track of the main conversation, this was meant to be a bellwether for our expectations of men. If even the most extreme situations (being too young to legally participate, or even not committing any voluntary act at all) aren't enough to mitigate responsibility, then it's pretty clear that we're not giving men in other situations (lied to about birth control, not told about other possible paternity) a fair hearing.
Honestly, I still have some trouble imagining a man having sex with a woman against his will. I generally don't get an erection unless I actually want sex. I'll grant you have a case with statutory rape, or, obviously, if the child isn't theirs, but these things can be checked. I can well imagine some women might lie about birth control, but what would you do if the man claims this? Simply accept his word? This isn't (or at least certainly shouldn't be) enough to condemn a man for rape, and I don't think it should be enough to condemn a woman for deceit either.
Sure nature is unfair, but that doesn't mean we have to be. Nature sticks women with kids after sex, but lets men walk away, and also give us instincts to try to counteract that imbalance. So we invented induced abortion and birth control, fought to make them legal, and then to make the free. And we also make men pay for dates, pressure them to marry pregnant partners, and now hunt them down after one night stands and even after they're victims of sex crimes. At some point our one-sided re-balancing of the scales will start to make things unfair in the opposite direction, and I think we've passed that.
There are all sorts of norms, pressures, and expectations in society, some of which are unfair to women, and some of which are unfair to men. I don't think men should have to always pay for dates, or marry pregnant partners. I don't think we were talking about these things though, but rather about law. Legally, I do think men should be required to contribute to supporting their children, unless they have a good reason not to.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify, my post was intended as sarcasm. Also, my argument wasn't supposed to be about whether or not we should have complete freedom, but only that freedom isn't the same thing as the absence of rules. i.e. We need rules to ensure people respect each other's freedom.
Oh really? So I don't have a right to tell you not to commit theft or murder?
The claim I was responding to, was that if a licence has any rules, then it is not free. My (yes, sarcastic) response is intended to point out the absurdity of equating freedom to the lack of rules.
The law is worse than Hitler.
And this is just another example of "We absolutely believe in freedom --- except when we don't"
If you truly believe in Free Society (free meaning "freedom") then you reject the law because it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with forcing specific beliefs on citizens. Actually, if you truly believe in freedom you reject ANY law except one that contains exactly one sentence:
You are free to do whatever you want.
Anything else is hypocritical bullshit.
</moron>
Imagine they did resuscitate, and the note was serious, and the family sued the pants off the hospital for the infliction of years of unwanted pain and suffering. Or just imagine the hospital caused years of unwanted pain and suffering, and wasn't sued.
Honestly, I think it is reasonable to expect that if you have a tattoo saying you don't want to be resuscitated, then people might think that you don't want to be resuscitated. If I was sitting on the jury, I would side with the hospital staff, no question.
I wouldn't be surprised if the legal costs for both sides were four times higher than the potential damages for infringement. If we exclude patents on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, the overall cost of patent litigation to the defendant was around four times the overall profit from patent licensing in 1999, and rising (see p. 15 of the reference below). (I know design patents are different, but this is the most relevant study I know of.)
Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J. (2008) Patent failure
Companies need policies that cover software, including licensing compliance and updates. It's not at all clear from the article that companies need policies to manage risks associated specifically with open-source software, because the article doesn't even attempt to compare risks associated with open-source software with those associated with closed-source software. Without doing a comparison, and pointing to relevant differences, it seems a bit like arguing that companies need policies for black employees, or that they need policies for white employees, without considering whether one set of policies might be enough to cover both.
No, it doesn't say that explicitly, but since it talks at length about there being risks with open-source software, without even mentioning that there are also risks with closed-source software (which seems very relevant, since besides building in house, these are the two options), it does rather seem to be implying it. It strikes me as dishonest. Essentially lying by omission, I think.
Yes, I suppose someone approves the purchase of licenses for closed-source software, and someone sees the purchase on the balance sheet at some point. I'm not convinced this will significantly improve the chances of regular of updates, though. If the people who approve the purchase, and/or see it on the balance sheet, are supposed to be responsible for the administration of the systems running the software, I think they'll most likely already have been aware that the software was being installed, and set up procedures for updates, if they're appropriately concerned about updates (and if not, they won't do it anyway). If the people who approve the purchase, and/or see it on the balance sheet aren't supposed to be responsible for the administration of the systems, then I'm not sure they're likely to give much thought to procedures for installing updates. Also, going the other way, updates of closed-source software may be delayed because of budget constraints.
I'd guess it'll probably become ubiquitous in devices that are either very small or very large, but won't make much of a dent in the PC market (where x86 is already entrenched) or the tablet/phone market (where ARM is already entrenched). Kind of like how we've got the Linux kernel on supercomputers and servers, tablets, phones, watches, routers, etc., but not so much on PCs, where MS Windows was already entrenched.
I think I remember a video from one of the people involved in RISC-V saying that it was originally just intended for use in courses about CPU design. They kept revising it whenever a PhD student figured out a better way of doing something. Then they started getting calls from people in India asking "Why do you keep changing the spec?" It was being used as an embedded processor in special purpose chips. Nvidia is planning to use it as an embedded processor in their GPUs, apparently (replacing their in-house processor "Falcon"). So RISC-V's already making inroads here.
Google's apparently interested in it for their servers too. At that scale, the savings from higher efficiency could offset research and development costs. I think RISC-V will probably take over server farms and supercomputers eventually.
For PCs, I think you're right, it'll probably be a niche market.
Although the .NET licensing was seriously shady in the past, it's actually licensed under the MIT licence now (which is much like the BSD licence).
I don't think MS did this out of the goodness of their hearts. IMO, their initial BS faux free licensing wasn't fooling anyone, they weren't taking as much market share as they hoped from the incumbent Java (which is looking less free of late), Mono was breaking into their walled garden, and then Apple came out with their own walled garden, Swift. I think MS has switched from playing offence to playing defence here. i.e. I think they've given up on trying to screw people over with .NET, and decided to settle for trying to prevent people from being screwed over with Oracle Java or Apple Swift.
Regardless of MS's motives, however, .NET is actually free now.
Personally, I like the title bar to have an icon on the left, with the title immediately next to it (left aligned), because it resembles the way the file appears when viewed in a list of files. Therefore, I prefer the close button on the right.
Of course, the icon and title on the window should be that of the file that is displayed, not the program used to display it. The icon and title of the program should be at the very top left of the screen, on its menu bar. It's an easy, logical standard that allows the users to quickly grasp the difference between the file displayed and the program displaying it.
Why is this not a common standard by now?
I'd agree it's like an income tax, but it's a regressive tax to an unelected organisation, and on top of that, everything you use it for can be monitored and controlled by them. It's not a decision I would want to make. I don't condemn you for it, given the circumstances, but I hope you recognise that the circumstances aren't ideal.
Damn, that was depressing reading. At least the Huffington Post article was pulled, I guess. I note though that the compilers of the list specifically decided to look for violence from only one side, which I think is unfortunate, because it will necessarily paint a one-sided picture, whether or not the violence is actually one sided.
I'm not very well informed about news from other countries, and didn't know about any of this stuff. I did follow the USA election though, and recall something about a group calling themselves the 1%, or similar, who, I think, were calling for violence if the election was rigged, and that in combination with, I believe, Donald Trump suggesting that if he didn't win the election, then it must be rigged, sounded like bad news to me.
Also, I think that what I was responding to, "Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican. Just wait till we start shooting back.", is also bordering on a call for violence, and while that's not as bad as actual violence, or a direct call for violence, it's still not a particularly good thing, and I don't think it's unreasonable to call it out.
I wonder if there's any increase of support on the left (or in the Supreme Court, if the decision can be revisited there) for allowing peaceful secession. If it can't be achieved through the Supreme Court, it might be done through a constitutional amendment, with sufficient support. I dunno.
I don't think I was clouding the issue, I think I was looking for support for the claim, although perhaps I need to back up, and ask what you think the claim even means.
"Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican." suggests to me reports rolling in month after month of Republican congressmen shot by left wingers, and I expect I would have heard if this was the case. Does it suggest less to you?
Thinking about the bare minimum the statement could possibly mean, surely there must be at least two left wingers who shot Republican congressmen, and at least two Republican congressmen who were shot (since plurals were used in both cases)? "Now" implies recent. This is a less clear-cut term, but is it reasonable to say it would be stretching the definition of "now" in this context to refer to more than the last decade?
I had done a quick Internet search and found a couple of Republicans assassinated in the last 5 years, and thought that might have been what the claim was based on, but it turns out they were assassinated by another Republican.
Doing another search, I find Steve Scalise shot (but not killed) by James Hodgkinson. (I'm sure this was big news in the USA, but as I've previously said, I don't live in the USA.) Were there more shootings, or do you think this one alone justifies the claim?
If there was one Democrat congressman shot by a Republican, would you take it as sufficient basis for the claim "Right wingers now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Democrats.", or would you think it was an over-generalisation?
OK. So let's look into the Republicans, Mark Hasse and Mike McLelland:
What are Eric Williams' political affiliations?
It looks like both the Republicans on the list were killed by another Republican. So which statement does all of this best support?
or
Re your signature:
I suspect this is something of an over-generalisation. I don't live in the USA, but looking at the List of assassinated American politicians on Wikipedia, for those since 2000 (excluding the three that don't have listed party affiliations):
It would seem inaccurate to suggest that the USA politicians assassinated in recent years have been overwhelmingly Republican.
I watched it while listening to Yakety Sax, as suggested elsewhere, and the experience compared favourably to sitting through Rogue One for over 2 hours (the last movie I went to). The best part of that was when Darth Vader said "Be careful not to choke on your aspirations", while using the force to choke someone, because I took the opportunity to laugh very loudly and say "Oh, that's good. I wonder if anyone else got that."
Are you saying that you think it is fine for author to prevent copying, unless they allow copying on the proviso that those who copy also allow copying?
There may well be contributors who wanted to make a proprietary derivative that locked in users, but I dare say there were none who wanted someone else to make a proprietary derivate that locked in users.
Anyway, this is rapidly becoming a moot point. If you get your users to access stuff "in the cloud", then you can use all the GPL code you like (AGPL aside), and never have to release a line of source.
More people use MS Windows than Linux for the same reason that more people use English than Esperanto. Not because it's better, but because it's entrenched in society. MS-DOS for the IBM PC wasn't remarkably good. What was remarkable about it was that it hacked together very quickly. Copyright gave monopoly control and massive profits to whoever got something out the door first in an emerging market. (Although control over "the desktop" is now becoming less important than control over "the cloud".)
Okay, I concede.
It's because I haven't been presented with any evidence of it, and it doesn't align with my personal experience.
This is news to me, but okay, I'm willing to accept that it's theoretically possible for a woman to physically arouse a man who is not attracted to her, by somehow forcibly stimulating his anus. This isn't a skill she'd be able to develop with a willing partner, however, since they would be aroused anyway. Nor do I expect it would be easy to find some kind of how-to guide, or join a gang of women who do this. And she couldn't have learned it as personal experience from being a victim (being the wrong gender). Without some kind of inside knowledge, I think she'd have to essentially take a punt, and hope to strike it lucky, which doesn't seem like a very empowering situation. She'd have to take the risk that, despite her best efforts, she might fall flat on her face, and if she's willing to do that, then it's easier to hit on a guy in a bar. And she'd have to be okay dealing with a man's anus, when it's the penis she wants. A woman raping a man still seems much less likely to me than a man raping a woman, or a man raping a man. (At least if we are talking about forced rather than coerced, and the victim is not attracted to the attacker.)
No, I don't think men can do that. (Or at least I can't.) I just don't think I would feel aroused while being attacked, even by someone I was attracted to. I think I would probably feel frightened and humiliated.
Okay, thanks. :-)
Okay, maybe. It does sound a bit more plausible to me if it's a partner or ex-partner, who knows the victim is attracted to them, especially if the victim is somehow incapacitated, other than by being physically overpowered, in a way that allows them to still be aroused. I can easily imagine that, if I was, say laid up in a bed with multiple broken limbs, an ex-partner would have little trouble forcing themselves on me against my will (if no-one else was around to stop them). This is a pretty specific situation, though. For drunk or high, okay, in situations that it would be considered rape if it happened to a woman. For threats though, again, I suspect I might find this unarousing (especially if the threat was that she'd say I molested the kids).
I guess this is partly speculation, having never actually been in this specific situation. I have been verbally abused by my partner though, and received (comparatively minor, and more veiled) threats. And though I am physically attracted to my partner, I certainly haven't been aroused in these situations.
I guess though, if I had been having an affair, and my lover threatened to tell my wife about it if it didn't continue, that might not be unarousing (especially if it was accompanied by something like "I love you so much, and I know you really love me, an
Reposting something I posted elsewhere:
I think it's a mind, not a body, that defines a person. One body is usually associated with one mind. However if we think about (or postulate) cases where this isn't the case, I think it becomes obvious that it's the mind that's important, and the body is just a vessel.
e.g. We think of Conjoint/Siamese twins as twins, two people, not one person, because there are two minds, despite there being only one body. If a person is decapitated, they are dead and gone, regardless of whether their body could be kept on life support, because it is the mind that is important not the body, and the mind is gone. Considering the hypothetical situation in "body swap" stories like Freaky Friday, we would say that the people are in different bodies, not that the people have different minds in them, because it is the mind, not the body, that defines the person.
There can't be a mind until after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks after fertilisation), because connections don't begin to form in the cerebral cortex until then, so until then there is just an empty vessel, IMHO.
As to abortion making the situation symmetrical again, no it doesn't.
Men have contraceptive options. They can have a vasectomy and/or wear a condom. Women have no right to force men to do either of these things. These are men's choices to make, because they involve men's bodies. A woman could refuse to have sex with a man because he hasn't done these things, however.
Women have contraceptive options, and also have the option of an abortion. Men have no right to force women to do these things. These are women's choices to make, because they involve women's bodies. A man could refuse to have sex with a woman because she hasn't used contraception. If it comes to a woman choosing whether or not to have an abortion, however, it's a bit late for the man to decide he didn't want to have sex.
Don't be a fucking moron.
No, I don't have to be a slave to my emotions, but the suggested situation, a woman that I find attractive attacking me, and forcing me to have sex with her, just doesn't sound very plausible to me. I guess, partly, I'd wonder, if she's attractive, why does she feel the need to force anyone to have sex with her? Partly, I suspect that being attacked would ruin the mood for me, thus rendering the exercise futile. (Partly, too, I'm not sure I would be attracted to a woman who was bigger and stronger than me enough that she could overpower me, but perhaps that's just personal taste.)
I don't know about what you're referring to, and I still find it difficult to imagine. But okay, just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm fine with men not having to pay child support if a jury finds the woman guilty of rape (including statutory rape, and all the same rules that apply in the converse situation).
Fair enough.
Okay. I don't live in the US, so I'll take your word on it.
I'm not going to argue with that.
In general, I think there's often biased language where there's disagreement. Not that this isn't a problem, but I don't think it's a problem unique to this situation.
Honestly, I still have some trouble imagining a man having sex with a woman against his will. I generally don't get an erection unless I actually want sex. I'll grant you have a case with statutory rape, or, obviously, if the child isn't theirs, but these things can be checked. I can well imagine some women might lie about birth control, but what would you do if the man claims this? Simply accept his word? This isn't (or at least certainly shouldn't be) enough to condemn a man for rape, and I don't think it should be enough to condemn a woman for deceit either.
There are all sorts of norms, pressures, and expectations in society, some of which are unfair to women, and some of which are unfair to men. I don't think men should have to always pay for dates, or marry pregnant partners. I don't think we were talking about these things though, but rather about law. Legally, I do think men should be required to contribute to supporting their children, unless they have a good reason not to.