I for one don't care one way or the other what term you use, although I've noticed that I tend to use disabled. There's a (false) urban legend about the etymology of handicapped that people often use to explain their dislike of the term; what it really boils down to is that handicapped has been used in enough negative (patronizing and otherwise) situations that it's been "tainted". Much the way "negro" used to be the correct term for a person with dark skin, but now is unacceptable. There's nothing wrong with the term itself (AFAIK), it's just that it carries lots of baggage.
There's also the medical vs. social model interpretations of the two, which may or may not be valid. The medical model says one's problems arise primarily from a medically-based impairment, whereas the social model says that those problems are secondary to the problems caused by society's standards (prejudice, access to healthcare, to employment, to education, lack of accessible infrastructure). Disabled fits into the social model better, and handicap is then relagated to the medical model, for reasons I won't go into here - it's an interesting discussion, but a lengthy one. Definitely not one for 4:30 AM when I should be finishing up this all-nighter...
As a disabled person (ergo, a non-racial minority), it *is* different for me. I deal with prejudice that's explicit and open, prejudice that's quiet and subconscious, prejudice that people assume is "pro-disabled" - ignore the physical differences that make my life harder, and look at the way I'm treated by society, and you'll find that it *is* different.
Granted, the "oh, you're foo and managed to become a programmer? Good for you!" sucks. But the fact that I find that patronizing doesn't mean my life and experience are the same as yours, or that the differences in our experiences shouldn't be studied.
Is this a reference to A Clockwork Orange? 'Cuz it could just as easily be a ref. to The Yellow Wallpaper, except that the tone is not quite right, and it sounds like a quote.
In addition to what everyone else has said, it's implied by the First Amendment - it's generally understood that free speech doesn't work if you are constantly being watched.
You probably won't see this, as you're an AC, but I'll say it anyway. That was exactly my point; any scripture can be quoted out of context. I obviously wasn't clear enough, but I'll clarify here: any scripture can be quoted out of context, *especially* when you're just quoting one line. If there is a line in the Koran that says that Muslims are duty-bound so kill non-Muslims (and presumably, that would be limited to non-dhimmi non-Muslims), then that's no different than saying that there's a line in Luke that says [insert quote here].
The Koran, however, states it is the duty of Muslims to kill non-Muslims.
I'm not sure whether this is true or not; regardless, it's no different than the New Testament. Luke 19:27, for example: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." And just as the New Testament has stuff about loving your enemies, the Koran has 17:33, "Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except in the cause of justice. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)". I could give more examples, but that should be enough.
Yeah - I can definitely type faster than I can process. All I need is a text editor (I tell myself it uses less processing power than Word, and thus saves me battery life) and the screen at the bare minimum for brightness.
The Hasidim are similar, in that they suffer from the founder effect, have been a great research population, and have set up internal systems to attempt to study and minimize inbreeding.
They don't necessarily expect to profit from it, they just expect (or hope) that it'll go up from where it is. That may involve it rising to more than what they paid (profit) or more than what it's at now, but less than what they paid (mitigation of losses). It is reminiscint of that joke, though: "Fire you? I just spent millions training you!"
IANAL, and this is pure speculation, but... it could be that (if he ever gets taken to court based on the recent Grokster v. MGM ruling) this is viewed as evidence of intent to commit or encourage crime.
This is somewhat offtopic, but when you refer to the Gang of 14 in the Senate, is that by analogy with the Gang of Four that used to hold power in China? And could you expand on the analogy a bit for me, since that section of my history is somewhat weak?
There's also the 1st Amendment, in that if one is unable to have privacy, one won't be able or willing to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. However, I think the Ninth Amendment is quite clear.
Funny. Telling people that they can't get married because of what they do in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms isn't Big Brother-ish? Telling people that what they do in their own homes (e.g., using birth control) isn't Big Brother-ish? Granted, the later is an old and perhaps obsolete example - but it's very closely tied to the reasons for Roe v. Wade.
Community service has the same problem - the rich can afford to take some time off from work, or pay for child care, etc., while the poor may not be able to.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one don't care one way or the other what term you use, although I've noticed that I tend to use disabled. There's a (false) urban legend about the etymology of handicapped that people often use to explain their dislike of the term; what it really boils down to is that handicapped has been used in enough negative (patronizing and otherwise) situations that it's been "tainted". Much the way "negro" used to be the correct term for a person with dark skin, but now is unacceptable. There's nothing wrong with the term itself (AFAIK), it's just that it carries lots of baggage.
There's also the medical vs. social model interpretations of the two, which may or may not be valid. The medical model says one's problems arise primarily from a medically-based impairment, whereas the social model says that those problems are secondary to the problems caused by society's standards (prejudice, access to healthcare, to employment, to education, lack of accessible infrastructure). Disabled fits into the social model better, and handicap is then relagated to the medical model, for reasons I won't go into here - it's an interesting discussion, but a lengthy one. Definitely not one for 4:30 AM when I should be finishing up this all-nighter...
As a disabled person (ergo, a non-racial minority), it *is* different for me. I deal with prejudice that's explicit and open, prejudice that's quiet and subconscious, prejudice that people assume is "pro-disabled" - ignore the physical differences that make my life harder, and look at the way I'm treated by society, and you'll find that it *is* different.
Granted, the "oh, you're foo and managed to become a programmer? Good for you!" sucks. But the fact that I find that patronizing doesn't mean my life and experience are the same as yours, or that the differences in our experiences shouldn't be studied.
Is this a reference to A Clockwork Orange? 'Cuz it could just as easily be a ref. to The Yellow Wallpaper, except that the tone is not quite right, and it sounds like a quote.
I, too, have it stuck in my head ... and I don't even know the lyrics beyond that one line!
Interesting observation, salesgeek.
After reading DIERIAA, I assumed this was going to be a rant about how they assumed it was a misspelling of diarrhea rather than Die RIAA.
In addition to what everyone else has said, it's implied by the First Amendment - it's generally understood that free speech doesn't work if you are constantly being watched.
Why not have a script watching the file to see when it changes, and update the gzipped stuff then?
If all you want is a fast browser with minimal features, try Dillo.
Erm ... if it's static, just store 2 copies and route accordingly. You're not serving gzipped stuff to save space, you're serving it to save bandwidth.
You probably won't see this, as you're an AC, but I'll say it anyway. That was exactly my point; any scripture can be quoted out of context. I obviously wasn't clear enough, but I'll clarify here: any scripture can be quoted out of context, *especially* when you're just quoting one line. If there is a line in the Koran that says that Muslims are duty-bound so kill non-Muslims (and presumably, that would be limited to non-dhimmi non-Muslims), then that's no different than saying that there's a line in Luke that says [insert quote here].
The Koran, however, states it is the duty of Muslims to kill non-Muslims.
I'm not sure whether this is true or not; regardless, it's no different than the New Testament. Luke 19:27, for example: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." And just as the New Testament has stuff about loving your enemies, the Koran has 17:33, "Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except in the cause of justice. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)". I could give more examples, but that should be enough.
Yeah - I can definitely type faster than I can process. All I need is a text editor (I tell myself it uses less processing power than Word, and thus saves me battery life) and the screen at the bare minimum for brightness.
Why would you want to do that?
It's not that I'm lazy, bob[x13]. It's that I just don't care.
I hate Verizon too, but they charge for both incoming and outgoing SMS on most plans - usually 4 and 10 cents respectively.
The Hasidim are similar, in that they suffer from the founder effect, have been a great research population, and have set up internal systems to attempt to study and minimize inbreeding.
They don't necessarily expect to profit from it, they just expect (or hope) that it'll go up from where it is. That may involve it rising to more than what they paid (profit) or more than what it's at now, but less than what they paid (mitigation of losses). It is reminiscint of that joke, though: "Fire you? I just spent millions training you!"
Wait, since when has BT been anonymous?
IANAL, and this is pure speculation, but ... it could be that (if he ever gets taken to court based on the recent Grokster v. MGM ruling) this is viewed as evidence of intent to commit or encourage crime.
I've heard this before, but can you give me an example or examples of SCOTUS taking cues from international law?
This is somewhat offtopic, but when you refer to the Gang of 14 in the Senate, is that by analogy with the Gang of Four that used to hold power in China? And could you expand on the analogy a bit for me, since that section of my history is somewhat weak?
There's also the 1st Amendment, in that if one is unable to have privacy, one won't be able or willing to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. However, I think the Ninth Amendment is quite clear.
"Big Brother Is Watching You"
Funny. Telling people that they can't get married because of what they do in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms isn't Big Brother-ish? Telling people that what they do in their own homes (e.g., using birth control) isn't Big Brother-ish? Granted, the later is an old and perhaps obsolete example - but it's very closely tied to the reasons for Roe v. Wade.
Community service has the same problem - the rich can afford to take some time off from work, or pay for child care, etc., while the poor may not be able to.