Perhaps when they're finished teaching European Muslims how to behave, they can come to Slashdot and teach the men here how to react when the Nebula Awards picks women authors for leading awards.
You don't have to go to Iran to find men who justify their ill behavior because of what they view as women being over-provocatively dressed. I've seen that exact claim made on/.
Yes, non-progressive societies like Libertarian-tinged Slashdot, where the mere mention of a woman gets the knuckle-draggers foaming at the mouth about SJWs.
Your children aren't yours either. You are their guardian, not their owner, and if your actions endanger them, your rights in this matter can be restricted or even terminated.
So what about infants and children who can't be vaccinated for various reasons? The whole point of herd immunity is that the very young and children with immune disorders that prevent vaccination are protected.
How about this. Any parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated must be pony up $10,000 per child, which will be put in a fund to pay for any children who couldn't be vaccinated due to age or health reasons and then gets sick from one of these preventable diseases. If you can't fork over $10,000, your kid gets the jab.
No, I'm not assuming that. As with any power, there will be abuses, and the redress for those abuses is the courts. But I think any parent wanting to deprive their child of medically necessary treatments is going to have a steep hill to climb claiming that their child's rights have been infringed.
It's either that or children really are just chattel, to be used by parents in any way the parent sees fit.
The courts do it for more immediately necessary medical therapies. Coming from a Jehovah's Witness background (an atheist now for over thirty years), I do remember as a kid all the whackos praying and flailing about because a judge forced a little JW kid to have a blood transfusion over the objection of the righteous parents. I suspect in many hospitals, as soon as they found a JW minor was admitted, they had the lawyers on standby.
While immunization doesn't have the urgency of a blood transfusion, it still represents a significant personal and public health risk to have people not vaccinating their kids, so yes, I think, whether it is "helpful" or not, there should be clear limits on the medical interventions that parents can have the power to deny their children. Children are not possessions, they are not slaves, and where any guardian abuses their powers over a child, I see no problem with social workers, doctors and the courts intervening to make sure the child's medical needs are dealt with.
My view as well. As I say above, children are wards of their parents, they are not slaves of their parents, and in other cases where parents refuse to provide the basic necessities or where they try to block necessary treatments (like blood transfusions or chemo) courts do step in to insure that the child's life is protected, whatever religious or pseudo-scientific crapola the parents may believe.
They should be forced to take a mental fitness test, an IQ test, and while they're doing that, their children are jabbed. Fuck "parental rights". Those should stop the very second a child's health is put at risk. Children are wards of their parents, not possessions, and if we're going to force the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to have blood transfusions to save their lives, why would we give some idiot parents the option of endangering their children's lives by allowing them to deprive their children of vaccinations.
I'd say having a university programming project become one of the biggest operating systems in history, and with the vast number of contributors and collaborators, all for a project that you can freely download, yeah, that's a pretty impressive badge of honor.
If Linus died tomorrow, he'd be viewed as one of the pantheon of great computer innovators, not so much because he produced anything in and of itself unique, but rather because he transformed the *nix ecosystem, and lead to greater penetration than I suspect Unix's original creators could ever have imagined.
Well, actually, just about anyone can file papers. You're right that to have a hope of hell of winning, you generally need a pretty good lawyer, but there's no particular expertise required to filing the paperwork.
It's even a worse slippery slope. Not only do they want to be able to crack open all encryption, but they want to black box the process so they don't have to reveal how they obtained the information in open court.
"Well, you're honor, we have the Anti-encrypto-tron 5000, whose inner workings we can't reveal, because, you know, terrorists and pedophiles! But rest assured, we didn't just invent this incriminating evidence. You can trust us totally."
But it has, insomuch as dictionary definitions do not restrict the word in the way you do. From Webster's:
Full Definition of decimate decimateddecimating transitive verb 1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of 2 : to exact a tax of 10 percent from 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number b : to cause great destruction or harm to decimation play \de-s-m-shn\ noun
Ayyadurai's whole claim really rests on the fact that he copyrighted the term "Email". Therefore, in the twisted logic of he and his supporters (who very likely are all just sockpuppets of Ayyadurai), that means he "invented" "Email". It's really just equivocation, and probably a bit of an etymological fallacy.
But his attacks on Tomlinson, who in fact, never even claimed to invent electronic mail, but rather came up with the "@" symbol as a means of routing mail between ARPANET servers, demonstrates that even in his own mind he confuses what he supposedly invented. In the end, he invented some email system that was briefly used, died like so much software, inspired no descendants, and had nothing at all to do with the descendants of the Arpanet email systems still in use today. It was an unknown dead end whose only legacy is some guy with a potentially worthless copyright and a serious psychological disturbance.
His whole argument seems to come down to the fact that he invented an email system with the name "email" as opposed to "electronic mail" or "e-mail". He believes his copyrighting of the term "Email" gives his claims some sort of increased merit. There's something of the etymological fallacy to this, since the difference between "e-mail" and "email" is pretty small. I'm not even sure the copyright it even defensible, but that's a side issue.
I have two theories about this guy. One is that he's just a fraud, and the other that he's mentally ill and suffering some sort of fixation. He has literally allowed this whole fracas to severely damage his career; MIT basically canned him over this.
I think the guy is an extraordinarily egotistical asshole, but I'm also beginning to think he's probably nuts. Why would anyone pursue a matter to the extent, and accruing the kind of personal damage he has, simply so people won't mention RFCs or Tomlinson? It's fucking crazy. And considering the number of places his claims were exposed as hyperbole and in some ways outright lies, is he going to sue everyone who demonstrated the inherent flaws and inaccuracies in his claim? I get that he had made some sort of business out of his BS claim, but it's dead now. No court is going to award jack shit, not in the US anyways.
I think we can be fairly confident that someone who compares the telemetry data of Vista and Windows 7 to the fundamental nature of the telemetry system in Windows 10, while not mentioning previous versions it could be completely disabled, is very likely a shill.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps when they're finished teaching European Muslims how to behave, they can come to Slashdot and teach the men here how to react when the Nebula Awards picks women authors for leading awards.
Until he didn't...
Trump has this nifty habit of changing direction, sometimes 180 degrees, depending on the audience.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/1...
Of course, Trump, like the Iranian theocrats, also happens to believe that most women are absolute shit.
You don't have to go to Iran to find men who justify their ill behavior because of what they view as women being over-provocatively dressed. I've seen that exact claim made on /.
Yes, non-progressive societies like Libertarian-tinged Slashdot, where the mere mention of a woman gets the knuckle-draggers foaming at the mouth about SJWs.
So, really, they're the Microsoft of terrorist organizations!
Shouldn't you be posting on Stormfront?
Your children aren't yours either. You are their guardian, not their owner, and if your actions endanger them, your rights in this matter can be restricted or even terminated.
Oh, and your a fucking vuile ashole to boot.
So what about infants and children who can't be vaccinated for various reasons? The whole point of herd immunity is that the very young and children with immune disorders that prevent vaccination are protected.
How about this. Any parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated must be pony up $10,000 per child, which will be put in a fund to pay for any children who couldn't be vaccinated due to age or health reasons and then gets sick from one of these preventable diseases. If you can't fork over $10,000, your kid gets the jab.
No, I'm not assuming that. As with any power, there will be abuses, and the redress for those abuses is the courts. But I think any parent wanting to deprive their child of medically necessary treatments is going to have a steep hill to climb claiming that their child's rights have been infringed.
It's either that or children really are just chattel, to be used by parents in any way the parent sees fit.
The courts do it for more immediately necessary medical therapies. Coming from a Jehovah's Witness background (an atheist now for over thirty years), I do remember as a kid all the whackos praying and flailing about because a judge forced a little JW kid to have a blood transfusion over the objection of the righteous parents. I suspect in many hospitals, as soon as they found a JW minor was admitted, they had the lawyers on standby.
While immunization doesn't have the urgency of a blood transfusion, it still represents a significant personal and public health risk to have people not vaccinating their kids, so yes, I think, whether it is "helpful" or not, there should be clear limits on the medical interventions that parents can have the power to deny their children. Children are not possessions, they are not slaves, and where any guardian abuses their powers over a child, I see no problem with social workers, doctors and the courts intervening to make sure the child's medical needs are dealt with.
My view as well. As I say above, children are wards of their parents, they are not slaves of their parents, and in other cases where parents refuse to provide the basic necessities or where they try to block necessary treatments (like blood transfusions or chemo) courts do step in to insure that the child's life is protected, whatever religious or pseudo-scientific crapola the parents may believe.
They should be forced to take a mental fitness test, an IQ test, and while they're doing that, their children are jabbed. Fuck "parental rights". Those should stop the very second a child's health is put at risk. Children are wards of their parents, not possessions, and if we're going to force the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to have blood transfusions to save their lives, why would we give some idiot parents the option of endangering their children's lives by allowing them to deprive their children of vaccinations.
Android anyone? Not to mention all the embedded variants.
My thinking is that Linux has at least as many users as Windows, if not more.
I'd say having a university programming project become one of the biggest operating systems in history, and with the vast number of contributors and collaborators, all for a project that you can freely download, yeah, that's a pretty impressive badge of honor.
If Linus died tomorrow, he'd be viewed as one of the pantheon of great computer innovators, not so much because he produced anything in and of itself unique, but rather because he transformed the *nix ecosystem, and lead to greater penetration than I suspect Unix's original creators could ever have imagined.
Well, actually, just about anyone can file papers. You're right that to have a hope of hell of winning, you generally need a pretty good lawyer, but there's no particular expertise required to filing the paperwork.
And even if it was, "decimated" doesn't strictly mean 1/10th.
http://blog.oxforddictionaries...
It's even a worse slippery slope. Not only do they want to be able to crack open all encryption, but they want to black box the process so they don't have to reveal how they obtained the information in open court.
"Well, you're honor, we have the Anti-encrypto-tron 5000, whose inner workings we can't reveal, because, you know, terrorists and pedophiles! But rest assured, we didn't just invent this incriminating evidence. You can trust us totally."
But it has, insomuch as dictionary definitions do not restrict the word in the way you do. From Webster's:
Full Definition of decimate
decimateddecimating
transitive verb
1
: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2
: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to
decimation play \de-s-m-shn\ noun
Oxford even has a blog on it: http://blog.oxforddictionaries...
Or, to put it very simply, you're just plain wrong.
Considering the number of frivolous lawsuits Trump has initiated, I'm thinking tort reform won't be at the top of his list either.
Ladies and gentleman... the etymological fallacy.
Or, as I like to call it, cocaine for pedants.
Ayyadurai's whole claim really rests on the fact that he copyrighted the term "Email". Therefore, in the twisted logic of he and his supporters (who very likely are all just sockpuppets of Ayyadurai), that means he "invented" "Email". It's really just equivocation, and probably a bit of an etymological fallacy.
But his attacks on Tomlinson, who in fact, never even claimed to invent electronic mail, but rather came up with the "@" symbol as a means of routing mail between ARPANET servers, demonstrates that even in his own mind he confuses what he supposedly invented. In the end, he invented some email system that was briefly used, died like so much software, inspired no descendants, and had nothing at all to do with the descendants of the Arpanet email systems still in use today. It was an unknown dead end whose only legacy is some guy with a potentially worthless copyright and a serious psychological disturbance.
His whole argument seems to come down to the fact that he invented an email system with the name "email" as opposed to "electronic mail" or "e-mail". He believes his copyrighting of the term "Email" gives his claims some sort of increased merit. There's something of the etymological fallacy to this, since the difference between "e-mail" and "email" is pretty small. I'm not even sure the copyright it even defensible, but that's a side issue.
I have two theories about this guy. One is that he's just a fraud, and the other that he's mentally ill and suffering some sort of fixation. He has literally allowed this whole fracas to severely damage his career; MIT basically canned him over this.
I think the guy is an extraordinarily egotistical asshole, but I'm also beginning to think he's probably nuts. Why would anyone pursue a matter to the extent, and accruing the kind of personal damage he has, simply so people won't mention RFCs or Tomlinson? It's fucking crazy. And considering the number of places his claims were exposed as hyperbole and in some ways outright lies, is he going to sue everyone who demonstrated the inherent flaws and inaccuracies in his claim? I get that he had made some sort of business out of his BS claim, but it's dead now. No court is going to award jack shit, not in the US anyways.
I think we can be fairly confident that someone who compares the telemetry data of Vista and Windows 7 to the fundamental nature of the telemetry system in Windows 10, while not mentioning previous versions it could be completely disabled, is very likely a shill.