I'd have countered the AC by pointing out that the US courts ruled that following a regulation is not indemnifying. You have the option to cease operations, rather than make an unsafe item, if the regulations require the item be unsafe (first ruled for airbags, that I saw, but no idea if it was based on older case law, nor any cites to the cases, as I followed them pre-Internet).
Given the AC's premise is wrong, that following regulations itself is indemnifying, then how would one expect anything else in the post to be true?
ROM is great, until you discover a fault, and open heart surgery is then the only way to fix the problem. I'm unsure how your stupid idea would be a benefit.
There's no reason they can't make it open wi-fi, connecting to any unsecured network in the vicinity and lose 100% security. You don't need layer-2 security to get layer-7 security. That, and I'd make a button in a spiderman location that would need to be pressed before WiFi or write capability were enabled, or some other physical switch to secure the wireless communication.
"WiFi" was essentially considered "near field" at the time. It was never intended for use outside a single room, or to hand off to other APs. Any failing of "WiFi" is shared by "near field".
When you are getting so many death threats, you are obviously doing something wrong.
That none of them were followed through on doesn't make them not credible. Credible is a measure of possible, not likely. Just because there was a low chance, doesn't mean it wasn't a threat that was impossible to carry out.
Do you have a cite? Seriously. You obviously haven't worked in retail (at least as anything other than cashier). The stores have categories they wish to fill. They ask Nerf for "girls toys" and nerf either sends their boy toys to the girl isle, sends nothing, or sends girl toys. Given that "regular Nerf" ends up on the boys isle, and "Nerf Rebelle" ends up only on the girls isle, Nerf, not the store, decided that "Nerf" is boys only, and "Nerf Rebelle" is girls only. The store didn't object, but didn't make that choice themselves.
For your statement to be true, the distribution network for Lego would have to be unlike every other toy on the planet.
Outrageous claims demand at least some evidence. I think you made a large number of simply wrong assumptions about retail, then are relying on assumptions (that the store places items, regardless of the wishes of the distributors) that are wrong, and coming to the wrong conclusion based on wrong assumptions. Your logic is sound, which is why you are unwilling to listen to anyone else, but your assumptions are based on common sense, not fact.
Lego makes pink toys for the same reason that the store who sold Anita her sweater makes pink sweaters.
So stores don't go to makers and request "girs clothes" and get sent pink? The store would ask makers for "girls clothes" and get sent boys clothes in a girls cut/sizing, then the store, fed up with the options given, go out and make their own?
Reality conflicts with your opinion. I know which one I believe more.
She wants Lego to stop making toys that boys want because she finds masculinity to be offensive.
Actually, I do, which is why I find the screenshot questionable - the only way to get such as screen in that exact format would be to deliberately try and hide your tracks (logging out, clearing the search bar before taking the screenshot, etc). Deliberation implies intent.
Or someone that opened the profile of the person sending the tweets (no search needed) who opened a "private window" to see it without revealing their personal info. Yes, it takes "forethought" but took me about 2 seconds to do (two clicks, once you are looking at an "offending" tweet).
Yes, and if US troops landed and shot those Russians, it would be Ukranian forces attacking rebels, not Americans shooting Russians, regardless of who pulls the trigger and who dies.
The "cliche" is the person that asserts anything they don't like is "force" and everything else is justified after, merely "counter-force" and not an initiation of force in response to speech.
Both in Korea and in Vietnam, there were plenty of Soviet advisors in the communist forces, and in some cases they were troops actively engaged in fighting - in particular, fighter pilots were often Soviets. So yes, US and Soviet troops did actually shoot directly at each other as part of Cold War.
Not in the minds of those ordering the fighting. When a Soviet killed an American in Vietnam, the NVA did it. The Soviets weren't shooting at us, the NVA/VC was shooting at the South Vietnamese. It just happened that the NVA shooting was Soviet, and the South Vietnamese army member killed was American.
Yes, Russia, under the USSR, bred out the Ukrainians. Crimea is a little different because it's often not been Ukrainian. But there were Russian palaces on the Crimean peninsula, so obviously some claims. The people I know from the Ukraine hare the Russians. The only Ukrainians that don't hate the Russians are Russians.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with the massive miss management for years. They spent more time trying to legislate out foreign makers, rather than trying to make cars people wanted. But that has nothing to do with their decline.
Tautology U has taught you well. Prove women don't participate for reasons other than bias.
If the reason women don't participate is because women are more likely to have their edits reverted when people see they are done by a feminine name, then the choosing to not participate is based in bias. Asserting your preferred answer doesn't change reality, no matter how much you want it to.
Somebody created an account just to harass a person whose honesty has come into question before, and they just so happened to do it less than 5 minutes before someone who wasn't logged in and didn't do an actual search somehow found the user page?
Sounds like someone doesn't know how Twitter works. Let's say someone else follows her. They see the @her tweets. So they see it, and make the screen capture. But, they don't want to get involved in the mess, so they save the search, log out, and paste in the URL, showing the tweets in that search, without showing the person who captured it or how they searched for it.
Yes, it does make it unlikely that the person threatened was the one to capture the tweets (unless it was a setup), but not an unreasonable or unlikely chain of events.
You realize you just contradicted yourself here, right? If trust is a binary decision, than the statement "Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time." would be invalid, since it implies degrees of trust rather than a "yes/no" configuration.
No. That's not a contradiction. Trust is binary. But trust isn't a single act. It's a binary between "yes" or "no" but not for all options. If your friend has been playing the "pull the chair" joke, you could trust your chair to hold you, but not trust it to be there. You still have trust all the time, just not in everything all the time. I trust that my next breath will contain oxygen. That is permanent, unless I'm in a fire or otherwise in trouble. But that doesn't mean that I have to trust everything all the time. Just that not trusting anything at any point in time would result in paralysis, and is mostly impossible. 10 minutes of analysis of the air before each breath isn't sustainable.
If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.
No, that's not how it works. In a courtroom, the balance of the evidence is not slanted to any special requirement of "proof", just "preponderance". And a screen shot of harassment is evidence that could be sufficient for a "win".
OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?
Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time.
Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?
There has never been a voting machine type that hasn't been tampered with, even paper and pen methods. Do "trust until proven otherwise" wouldn't apply, as "proven otherwise" has been met.
Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.
But it is. You either do it or you don't. How do you 37.5% trust your chair to not break when you sit in it? Find a weight exactly 37.5% of your weight and place it on the chair to test it before sitting down?
I read that after. The threading doesn't line up right sometimes, and the indicated GP wasn't the actual one. (and no, it wasn't because I have a high threshold and something was hidden)
So I stated those generalizations. Did that make me irrational and incapable of discussion?
No, it just made you wrong, and if you are wrong about the basics, a logical reader will assume you wrong about everything else (unless proven otherwise to a higher standard).
If you used the fact that you personally lived outside the US to claim that Americans do not live in America, you are far more wrong than the generalization is.
And you are creating a strawman in which I make a stupid false dichotomy.
Not all Americans live in America. Is that a generalization?
And no, the presence of manboobs is irrelevant to the claim that women have boobs.
It's not irrelevant. It points out the inanity of the claim. "All women have noses." True or not, it's 100% useless, as not only do all women have them, but all men, and all cats as well. So it is "wrong" even if true, because it implies some specilization, otherwise, there's be no reason to say it. And any indication that non-women are less nose-worthy is 100% false, so the factual statement is also a lie (a lie is a misleading statement, even if true).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have countered the AC by pointing out that the US courts ruled that following a regulation is not indemnifying. You have the option to cease operations, rather than make an unsafe item, if the regulations require the item be unsafe (first ruled for airbags, that I saw, but no idea if it was based on older case law, nor any cites to the cases, as I followed them pre-Internet).
Given the AC's premise is wrong, that following regulations itself is indemnifying, then how would one expect anything else in the post to be true?
ROM is great, until you discover a fault, and open heart surgery is then the only way to fix the problem. I'm unsure how your stupid idea would be a benefit.
There's no reason they can't make it open wi-fi, connecting to any unsecured network in the vicinity and lose 100% security. You don't need layer-2 security to get layer-7 security. That, and I'd make a button in a spiderman location that would need to be pressed before WiFi or write capability were enabled, or some other physical switch to secure the wireless communication.
"WiFi" was essentially considered "near field" at the time. It was never intended for use outside a single room, or to hand off to other APs. Any failing of "WiFi" is shared by "near field".
When you are getting so many death threats, you are obviously doing something wrong.
That none of them were followed through on doesn't make them not credible. Credible is a measure of possible, not likely. Just because there was a low chance, doesn't mean it wasn't a threat that was impossible to carry out.
Lego did not decide that pink was "for girls".
Do you have a cite? Seriously. You obviously haven't worked in retail (at least as anything other than cashier). The stores have categories they wish to fill. They ask Nerf for "girls toys" and nerf either sends their boy toys to the girl isle, sends nothing, or sends girl toys. Given that "regular Nerf" ends up on the boys isle, and "Nerf Rebelle" ends up only on the girls isle, Nerf, not the store, decided that "Nerf" is boys only, and "Nerf Rebelle" is girls only. The store didn't object, but didn't make that choice themselves.
For your statement to be true, the distribution network for Lego would have to be unlike every other toy on the planet.
Outrageous claims demand at least some evidence. I think you made a large number of simply wrong assumptions about retail, then are relying on assumptions (that the store places items, regardless of the wishes of the distributors) that are wrong, and coming to the wrong conclusion based on wrong assumptions. Your logic is sound, which is why you are unwilling to listen to anyone else, but your assumptions are based on common sense, not fact.
Lego makes pink toys for the same reason that the store who sold Anita her sweater makes pink sweaters.
So stores don't go to makers and request "girs clothes" and get sent pink? The store would ask makers for "girls clothes" and get sent boys clothes in a girls cut/sizing, then the store, fed up with the options given, go out and make their own?
Reality conflicts with your opinion. I know which one I believe more.
She wants Lego to stop making toys that boys want because she finds masculinity to be offensive.
I never saw that claim.
Not according to the reports from Vietnam.
Actually, I do, which is why I find the screenshot questionable - the only way to get such as screen in that exact format would be to deliberately try and hide your tracks (logging out, clearing the search bar before taking the screenshot, etc). Deliberation implies intent.
Or someone that opened the profile of the person sending the tweets (no search needed) who opened a "private window" to see it without revealing their personal info. Yes, it takes "forethought" but took me about 2 seconds to do (two clicks, once you are looking at an "offending" tweet).
Yes, and if US troops landed and shot those Russians, it would be Ukranian forces attacking rebels, not Americans shooting Russians, regardless of who pulls the trigger and who dies.
The "cliche" is the person that asserts anything they don't like is "force" and everything else is justified after, merely "counter-force" and not an initiation of force in response to speech.
So if force (or the initiation thereof) is wrong to the Libertarians, and speech is force, then all libertarians must be against "free speech", Right?
And yes, you are the first person I've seen who asserted that speech is force.
You are confusing reality with political reality.
Both in Korea and in Vietnam, there were plenty of Soviet advisors in the communist forces, and in some cases they were troops actively engaged in fighting - in particular, fighter pilots were often Soviets. So yes, US and Soviet troops did actually shoot directly at each other as part of Cold War.
Not in the minds of those ordering the fighting. When a Soviet killed an American in Vietnam, the NVA did it. The Soviets weren't shooting at us, the NVA/VC was shooting at the South Vietnamese. It just happened that the NVA shooting was Soviet, and the South Vietnamese army member killed was American.
Yes, Russia, under the USSR, bred out the Ukrainians. Crimea is a little different because it's often not been Ukrainian. But there were Russian palaces on the Crimean peninsula, so obviously some claims. The people I know from the Ukraine hare the Russians. The only Ukrainians that don't hate the Russians are Russians.
No, it wouldn't.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with the massive miss management for years. They spent more time trying to legislate out foreign makers, rather than trying to make cars people wanted. But that has nothing to do with their decline.
Tautology U has taught you well. Prove women don't participate for reasons other than bias.
If the reason women don't participate is because women are more likely to have their edits reverted when people see they are done by a feminine name, then the choosing to not participate is based in bias. Asserting your preferred answer doesn't change reality, no matter how much you want it to.
If women don't like it, maybe they should make their own wikipedia,
Chickipedia?
You don't need the remote if you have physical access.
Yup, and streakers at football games are almost always guys.
Somebody created an account just to harass a person whose honesty has come into question before, and they just so happened to do it less than 5 minutes before someone who wasn't logged in and didn't do an actual search somehow found the user page?
Sounds like someone doesn't know how Twitter works. Let's say someone else follows her. They see the @her tweets. So they see it, and make the screen capture. But, they don't want to get involved in the mess, so they save the search, log out, and paste in the URL, showing the tweets in that search, without showing the person who captured it or how they searched for it.
Yes, it does make it unlikely that the person threatened was the one to capture the tweets (unless it was a setup), but not an unreasonable or unlikely chain of events.
You realize you just contradicted yourself here, right? If trust is a binary decision, than the statement "Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time." would be invalid, since it implies degrees of trust rather than a "yes/no" configuration.
No. That's not a contradiction. Trust is binary. But trust isn't a single act. It's a binary between "yes" or "no" but not for all options. If your friend has been playing the "pull the chair" joke, you could trust your chair to hold you, but not trust it to be there. You still have trust all the time, just not in everything all the time. I trust that my next breath will contain oxygen. That is permanent, unless I'm in a fire or otherwise in trouble. But that doesn't mean that I have to trust everything all the time. Just that not trusting anything at any point in time would result in paralysis, and is mostly impossible. 10 minutes of analysis of the air before each breath isn't sustainable.
What force did she use? I don't understand.
What I am saying is that the world is controlled right now by politically correct, professionally offended people.
Yes. The Conservatives fucked it up for everyone.
"I don't like people who disagree with me" isn't a crime, nor should it be.
If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.
No, that's not how it works. In a courtroom, the balance of the evidence is not slanted to any special requirement of "proof", just "preponderance". And a screen shot of harassment is evidence that could be sufficient for a "win".
OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?
Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time.
Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?
There has never been a voting machine type that hasn't been tampered with, even paper and pen methods. Do "trust until proven otherwise" wouldn't apply, as "proven otherwise" has been met.
Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.
But it is. You either do it or you don't. How do you 37.5% trust your chair to not break when you sit in it? Find a weight exactly 37.5% of your weight and place it on the chair to test it before sitting down?
What was his experience with feminist professors?
I read that after. The threading doesn't line up right sometimes, and the indicated GP wasn't the actual one. (and no, it wasn't because I have a high threshold and something was hidden)
So I stated those generalizations. Did that make me irrational and incapable of discussion?
No, it just made you wrong, and if you are wrong about the basics, a logical reader will assume you wrong about everything else (unless proven otherwise to a higher standard).
If you used the fact that you personally lived outside the US to claim that Americans do not live in America, you are far more wrong than the generalization is.
And you are creating a strawman in which I make a stupid false dichotomy.
Not all Americans live in America. Is that a generalization?
And no, the presence of manboobs is irrelevant to the claim that women have boobs.
It's not irrelevant. It points out the inanity of the claim. "All women have noses." True or not, it's 100% useless, as not only do all women have them, but all men, and all cats as well. So it is "wrong" even if true, because it implies some specilization, otherwise, there's be no reason to say it. And any indication that non-women are less nose-worthy is 100% false, so the factual statement is also a lie (a lie is a misleading statement, even if true).