They don't need to pass any laws as the entire system favours "them" greatly. This is the entire thing. For you to miss that part means you really don't understand this discussion at all, and makes your participation in it somewhat confusing, as you appear to value your own opinion more than the facts. Redressing this balance will take work, and for people to complain about any efforts to redress it because they feel victimised seems incredibly selfish. This whole issue wouldn't be anywhere near as harsh if people had not been so happy with the imbalanced status quo over the last few decades. The only logical way one can stand against the desire for full representation is if they think women/non-white-folk are inherently worse at their jobs than white guys. As that is a specious reason, it's pretty clear why people arguing against it are deemed somewhat unhinged by those with a more reasoned approach.
If you can base the "white male" preference on logic, then there is no problem. When it's based on assumptions and wishes that's when shit starts to get called out. I can understand what leads people to be overly-aggressive when attempting to fix issues of representation in various sectors - sheer desperation that great swathes of society (and the worker resource they represent) are avoiding said sector must be quite the worry for any CEO looking to get the best hires (as if a competitor figures out how to wade through this mire, they will be ahead). I also find it repugnant that some people will ignore the entire body of evidence indicating that there is a large discrepancy with no physiological or logical underpinning, simply because the messenger irks them.
This is a great example of a story which will never yield any meaningful discussion. One one side we have people ignoring the tool in question and making rants about 'SJW' culture or jokes about racism and sexism. On the other side we have those trying to actually discuss the tool, but being undermined by people who can't get past the languages being used, and how they are 'hipster'-ish. The number of comments actually pertaining to this tool will be woefully small, especially compared to the off-topic comments.
This is a great demonstration on how hot-button topics will derail any discussion. It sure was easier to discuss technology on Slashdot when new languages were not overtly popular and equality and tolerance were not discussed. I guess those days have past.
No. This ridiculous point is often trotted out as some sort of defense against people calling out racism or sexism, and is clearly incorrect. I have no idea what drives an intelligent person to post such nonsense. It surely can't be with the expectation it will help further any fruitful discussion.
You misspelled "adult". You perpetrated a three-word ad hominem fallacy, which is quite impressive, but did absolutely nothing to demonstrate them wrong or you right.
The long-term carbon sink you mentioned isn't quite as long-term or sink-y as you imagine. Your lack of understanding of this topic is now very apparent.
So you are just flailing about trying to make an argument based on your personal recollections, extrapolating many poor arguments into an even poorer argument? Brilliant.
The problem with generalisations like yours is that it only takes one nerd who uses Windows 10 to prove you wrong. Just one. One single Windows 10-using nerd and you are incorrect. As it is, there are plenty, so you might want to think about not using such basic, childish logical arguments in future.
Taking note of how you perceived the driving conditions to be, unaware that you are incapable of accurately assessing them, at the expense of the safety of others. There is no excuse for being a twat.
Piracy doesn't harm anyone. Study after study has shown that piracy doesn't hurt movie profits. So that's why his argument is different - because it's entirely different.
But they have expressly forbidden it, as the service is for photos not images. If there was no camera involved in the production of the image, it's not a photo. They are not to blame for you not understanding the difference between "image" and "photo".
A photo is only a picture made by a camera. You can't open up a hex editor, put in a BMP header and then mash keys and call the resulting file a photograph, as it was not taken by a camera. You can't call 3D renders photographs either, as once more they were not taken by a camera. If they had said "unlimited image storage", you'd have a point.
What difference does it make? If you consider the average filesize of a photo is a meg or so compared to over a gigabyte, you can see that there is rather a large difference. As not everyone would be uploading all the photos they will ever take at once, that means Amazon would be able to gradually increase the amount of storage dedicated to this service, reaping the benefits of decreasing storage price in the process, and the ability to take advantage of newer, larger capacity drives as they become available when replacing failed/failing drives. If everyone decides to game the system by uploading thousands of times the data expected, Amazon's upgrades now have to happen a thousand times faster. Clearly one is sustainable and one isn't. There's your difference.
He was rendered, though. 'Render' just means to give something to someone, in this case a prisoner to whoever extradited him. The process is "extradition", and the act is "rendering". 'Extraordinary rendition' is not the same thing as 'rendition', hence the extra word in there to highlight the difference.
'Britain' is a political term meaning precisely the same thing as 'UK'. 'Great Britain' is a geographic term for the large island. I can understand your confusion, but you are unfortunately wrong on this subject.
Slashdot Mirror
How does a post prove software is safe? That is a ridiculous assertion, APK. Seriously.
Don't be so overly dramatic. "Stalking"? No. Of course not. You are diminishing your argument with such ridiculous language.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. No wonder you are so angry if you get so confused by very basic arguments.
He doesn't, though. Read what he actually said before putting words in his mouth.
Hi, APK! You've been quiet recently.
(Hint: it's obviously you as no-one else cares about you being proven right or wrong - they just care about your spamming)
They don't need to pass any laws as the entire system favours "them" greatly. This is the entire thing. For you to miss that part means you really don't understand this discussion at all, and makes your participation in it somewhat confusing, as you appear to value your own opinion more than the facts. Redressing this balance will take work, and for people to complain about any efforts to redress it because they feel victimised seems incredibly selfish. This whole issue wouldn't be anywhere near as harsh if people had not been so happy with the imbalanced status quo over the last few decades. The only logical way one can stand against the desire for full representation is if they think women/non-white-folk are inherently worse at their jobs than white guys. As that is a specious reason, it's pretty clear why people arguing against it are deemed somewhat unhinged by those with a more reasoned approach.
If you can base the "white male" preference on logic, then there is no problem. When it's based on assumptions and wishes that's when shit starts to get called out. I can understand what leads people to be overly-aggressive when attempting to fix issues of representation in various sectors - sheer desperation that great swathes of society (and the worker resource they represent) are avoiding said sector must be quite the worry for any CEO looking to get the best hires (as if a competitor figures out how to wade through this mire, they will be ahead). I also find it repugnant that some people will ignore the entire body of evidence indicating that there is a large discrepancy with no physiological or logical underpinning, simply because the messenger irks them.
I'll stop rambling now, sorry.
This is a great example of a story which will never yield any meaningful discussion. One one side we have people ignoring the tool in question and making rants about 'SJW' culture or jokes about racism and sexism. On the other side we have those trying to actually discuss the tool, but being undermined by people who can't get past the languages being used, and how they are 'hipster'-ish. The number of comments actually pertaining to this tool will be woefully small, especially compared to the off-topic comments.
This is a great demonstration on how hot-button topics will derail any discussion. It sure was easier to discuss technology on Slashdot when new languages were not overtly popular and equality and tolerance were not discussed. I guess those days have past.
No. This ridiculous point is often trotted out as some sort of defense against people calling out racism or sexism, and is clearly incorrect. I have no idea what drives an intelligent person to post such nonsense. It surely can't be with the expectation it will help further any fruitful discussion.
You misspelled "adult". You perpetrated a three-word ad hominem fallacy, which is quite impressive, but did absolutely nothing to demonstrate them wrong or you right.
The long-term carbon sink you mentioned isn't quite as long-term or sink-y as you imagine. Your lack of understanding of this topic is now very apparent.
So you are just flailing about trying to make an argument based on your personal recollections, extrapolating many poor arguments into an even poorer argument? Brilliant.
So the linux implementation isn't nearly as robust and is terribly limited in scope. That's not a particularly good argument.
The problem with generalisations like yours is that it only takes one nerd who uses Windows 10 to prove you wrong. Just one. One single Windows 10-using nerd and you are incorrect. As it is, there are plenty, so you might want to think about not using such basic, childish logical arguments in future.
Taking note of how you perceived the driving conditions to be, unaware that you are incapable of accurately assessing them, at the expense of the safety of others. There is no excuse for being a twat.
Piracy doesn't harm anyone. Study after study has shown that piracy doesn't hurt movie profits. So that's why his argument is different - because it's entirely different.
But they have expressly forbidden it, as the service is for photos not images. If there was no camera involved in the production of the image, it's not a photo. They are not to blame for you not understanding the difference between "image" and "photo".
Image != photo. So no. They are not photos, but images of pure static, as you admitted.
A photo is only a picture made by a camera. You can't open up a hex editor, put in a BMP header and then mash keys and call the resulting file a photograph, as it was not taken by a camera. You can't call 3D renders photographs either, as once more they were not taken by a camera. If they had said "unlimited image storage", you'd have a point.
If the two minivans took up the same space as a go-kart, sure. As we are talking about two minivans and not a go-kart, your point is rather specious.
What difference does it make? If you consider the average filesize of a photo is a meg or so compared to over a gigabyte, you can see that there is rather a large difference. As not everyone would be uploading all the photos they will ever take at once, that means Amazon would be able to gradually increase the amount of storage dedicated to this service, reaping the benefits of decreasing storage price in the process, and the ability to take advantage of newer, larger capacity drives as they become available when replacing failed/failing drives. If everyone decides to game the system by uploading thousands of times the data expected, Amazon's upgrades now have to happen a thousand times faster. Clearly one is sustainable and one isn't. There's your difference.
Not all feminists believe the way you seem to think they do. That says more about you than them, unfortunately, and it's not good for you.
Unless British miles are smaller than US miles, your argument makes no sense.
He was rendered, though. 'Render' just means to give something to someone, in this case a prisoner to whoever extradited him. The process is "extradition", and the act is "rendering". 'Extraordinary rendition' is not the same thing as 'rendition', hence the extra word in there to highlight the difference.
'Britain' is a political term meaning precisely the same thing as 'UK'. 'Great Britain' is a geographic term for the large island. I can understand your confusion, but you are unfortunately wrong on this subject.