I've developed plenty of sophisticated scripts in Bash. Just because you haven't learned Bash doesn't mean it isn't useful, it just means you lack experience and knowledge.
For some of us, having a common scripting language on Windows and *nix, one which has decades worth of scripts behind, is more valuable than OOP concepts. For chrissakes, even on a fairly well-speced system, the amount of time Powershell takes to start is astonishing, whereas I have Linux installs on crappy Cyrix processors with 256mb of RAM where Bash pops up right away.
PowerShell ain't Bash. It's like Bash's insane first cousin, the one who keeps his urine in the fridge and has a name for all the spiders in his attic.
The solution is to create stalls; stalls for urinals and stalls for showers. Frankly I hate public showers, mainly because I'm an overly bloated middle aged guy that all the jocks mock, sometimes openly. I'd gladly use a shower co-ed show facility where everyone had privacy. That way, whether the person next to you was a man, a woman, a trans man, a trans woman, a ten year old or a ninety year old, would be irrelevant. If privacy is the real concern here (which it isn't, I think even the supporters of this law know perfectly well that it is a smokescreen for legalized discrimination) then the solution isn't three types of bathrooms, it's one type of bathroom with more privacy.
As it happens, I'm seeing more urinal stalls in public facilities all the time, which is nice, because why should urinating be somehow a less private act than defecating?
That's because you're a rational human being. The people these politicians are pandering to have irrational fears and a belief, even in the US, that their religious objections should somehow trump all other considerations and other peoples' liberties.
Unisex bathrooms and people using bathrooms of the gender they identify with can be find all over the Western world, so care to cite some statistics to justify your concerns? Just what do you imagine the risks are and how frequently do they actually occur?
Go on, this is a useful exercise, one where you attempt to demonstrate your assumptions and prejudices against actual evidence. Are you brave enough for the exercise?
Perhaps they will, but as others have pointed out,perverted men who like to look at boys aren't permitted by current laws, so it boils down to depriving all trans of the use of the washroom of the gender they identify with because some pervert might try to use it to get a peek.
It causes a ruckus because religion has long been used as a cover for all sorts of bigotry and abusive behavior. There were lots of dedicated Christians out there lynching black men for the evil sin of having sex, or even being alleged to have looked like they might have sex with decent god-fearing Anglo-Saxon women.
Your right to your religious beliefs is protected. Your right to use your religious beliefs as a shield to deprive other people of their liberties are not.
In the North Carolina situation, what we're seeing is legislation being passed whose sole purpose is to not only facilitate discrimination, but to out and out enforce it. That a trans woman is going to be forced to use a men's restroom, will, along with depriving them of their liberties, end up being so patchily enforced that it raises questions about how the law can even be viewed as legitimate. How precisely is it going to be enforced? How will you determine if a birth certificate represents the person's gender at birth? What if the trans person is from out of state or an immigrant? It strikes me that how it will be enforced is that trans persons who have not completed the reassignment surgery will be the ones who will bear the brunt of this, because they still have their birth genitalia. It will almost certainly be more likely be used to discriminate against trans people who may not have the resources for the cosmetic surgery that someone like Caitlyn Jenner could afford.
Of course, watch out if you're a particularly masculine looking woman or feminine looking man, because ho boy, someone's gonna call the cops and finger you as a pervert, and how will that be resolved? By forcing you to strip to prove you have a penis or a vagina? Doesn't that raise serious civil rights concerns?
And at the end of the day, all a trans person wants to do is use the bloody washroom, like anybody else, without it ending up being held in a lockup and risking being labeled as a sex offender by some hysterical socially conservative reactionaries.
It's no longer considered a mental illness, and seeing as they aren't harming you in the least, why is it that you feel you have some special right to label them as mentally ill and force them to use the washrooms of their birth gender?
That's because this isn't about bathroom privacy or about protecting children, it's about imposing social and religious views out of step with the times. Since a trans woman is going to go into a bathroom stall just like a woman born to that gender, can you explain how anyone's privacy has been breached? And with the current state of gender reassignment surgery for trans men, it isn't likely to often be a problem for men.
You can certainly try to hide your bigotry behind some flimsy wall of privacy and decency, but it doesn't really hold up. Trans women forced to use men's washrooms are going to be at pretty significant risks in some areas, and since they aren't actually bothering you at all, why exactly do you feel your non-right to not feel icky should overwhelm their very legitimate concerns and liberties. What is it you think is going to happen in that stall beside you?
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all trans because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules?
All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every trans person because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
Let's imagine for a moment a female sex predator sneaking a peak at young girls in a women's washroom, or a male sex predator doing the same in a men's washroom. Are you saying these individuals cannot be prosecuted because they have the right bits under their clothes?
My favorite example is an article in the National Post (a conservative Canadian newspaper) yesterday that intentionally confused the issue, talking, for some reason about people who make $200,000 a year. While it is possible that such individuals may use tax avoidance schemes, even tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, the real beneficiaries of these tax schemes have also been the very rich. But the whole article's intent was to try to get as close to making it sound like the leak was an attack on Mr. and Mrs. Average, it tries to minimize what is being revealed, and normalize it.
And yes, it is true that many of the people using these tax avoidance schemes are breaking no laws, but as tax avoidance is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, and one where merely arguing "it's legal" doesn't protect one from the stigma of not paying one's fair share.
But to my mind, the real issue here is that many of the people who are the greatest beneficiaries of tax havens are directly, or via the significant influence their wealth buys, able to game the system by making sure tax avoidance IS legal at all. How is being in a position to pass a law that protects one's own wealth, by assuring that other people have to cover the difference (translation: everyone who isn't wealthy) not ultimately a very insidious form of corruption?
And that's not even bringing up the fact that creating these tax loopholes has allowed criminals and rogue regimes to wash their own cash and get around sanctions and embargoes makes those who pass these laws culpable for those actions as well.
Who I see this law abusing is transsexuals that haven't had the reassignment surgery yet, and those that may never have it (my understanding is that not all trans individuals have the surgery).
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue this isn't a 21st century version of "She's a Witch! Burn HER!!!!!" because that's what is going to happen. Some poor trans person who hasn't had the reassignment surgery is going to be hauled out by the police as screaming conservative reactionaries demand her head, declared a pervert, just like gay men were in many parts of the western world well into many of our lifetimes, be declared a sex offender, rendered unemployable and have their lives ruined. All so some politicians can pander to the lowest common denominator. And then, in a few years, after the poor woman's life has been trashed, the courts and a growing change in public opinion will wipe the law off the books, and North Carolina will slap itself on the back for entering the modern age. You know, how many Southern Baptists seem so pleased that they decided ten years ago that blacks probably aren't inferior, so now aren't they so very forward thinking.
Just as young children should be exposed to people of different races, creeds and ethnic backgrounds, and introduced to the idea of liberty and equality. That's how you destroy bigotry, by raising children that don't have bigoted views.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Other posters are right. This is just cover for holding Jeebus up high and striking out at people that don't conform to your views. This is exactly how the "Family Values" types try to claim that all gay men are pedophiles. Now suddenly all transexuals are actually peeping toms who want to wear dresses.
Do you think forcing someone in a dress to go in a men's room is some sort of demonstration of freedom? What happens, do you suppose, when the first North Carolina transgender teenager has the s--t beaten out of them by the sons of the neanderthals this law is meant to court? I'll tell you what happens. A Federal civil rights challenge that will see NC taxpayers pay out huge amounts of money. And then the court challenges that see the NC Attorney General defend a law that everyone, in particularly the lawmakers who are courting said neanderthals, knows will fail.
Having a person who is transitioning from male to female, or someone who has in fact completely transitioned, use a women's washroom harms no one, but forcing those people to use the men's washroom very likely will end up compromising those individual's civil liberties.
But that's okay, because your prejudices reign a little longer, until the courts force the whole thing in your face. And then, as a final sign of your ultimate impotence, you can complain about them thar darned liberal judges and their interfering ways!
Slashdot Mirror
I've developed plenty of sophisticated scripts in Bash. Just because you haven't learned Bash doesn't mean it isn't useful, it just means you lack experience and knowledge.
For some of us, having a common scripting language on Windows and *nix, one which has decades worth of scripts behind, is more valuable than OOP concepts. For chrissakes, even on a fairly well-speced system, the amount of time Powershell takes to start is astonishing, whereas I have Linux installs on crappy Cyrix processors with 256mb of RAM where Bash pops up right away.
PowerShell ain't Bash. It's like Bash's insane first cousin, the one who keeps his urine in the fridge and has a name for all the spiders in his attic.
Freedom always has a price. Compared to our ancestors, even with encryption, the cost of freedom is pretty fucking cheap these days.
It always amuses me that people think they can win arguments by freely redefining words.
I totally agree, in fact I think we should ...connection disconnected... router software licensing agreement expired...
Perhaps you could provide citations for any sources.
Yes, the judge is allowed to test a defendant's claims. You're just trying to invoke spurious objections.
The solution is to create stalls; stalls for urinals and stalls for showers. Frankly I hate public showers, mainly because I'm an overly bloated middle aged guy that all the jocks mock, sometimes openly. I'd gladly use a shower co-ed show facility where everyone had privacy. That way, whether the person next to you was a man, a woman, a trans man, a trans woman, a ten year old or a ninety year old, would be irrelevant. If privacy is the real concern here (which it isn't, I think even the supporters of this law know perfectly well that it is a smokescreen for legalized discrimination) then the solution isn't three types of bathrooms, it's one type of bathroom with more privacy.
As it happens, I'm seeing more urinal stalls in public facilities all the time, which is nice, because why should urinating be somehow a less private act than defecating?
That's because you're a rational human being. The people these politicians are pandering to have irrational fears and a belief, even in the US, that their religious objections should somehow trump all other considerations and other peoples' liberties.
Unisex bathrooms and people using bathrooms of the gender they identify with can be find all over the Western world, so care to cite some statistics to justify your concerns? Just what do you imagine the risks are and how frequently do they actually occur?
Go on, this is a useful exercise, one where you attempt to demonstrate your assumptions and prejudices against actual evidence. Are you brave enough for the exercise?
I wonder what your brother in law would say about you.
Translation: I have this anecdotal story involving a relative, so therefore I'm totally right about everything!!!!
Perhaps they will, but as others have pointed out,perverted men who like to look at boys aren't permitted by current laws, so it boils down to depriving all trans of the use of the washroom of the gender they identify with because some pervert might try to use it to get a peek.
It causes a ruckus because religion has long been used as a cover for all sorts of bigotry and abusive behavior. There were lots of dedicated Christians out there lynching black men for the evil sin of having sex, or even being alleged to have looked like they might have sex with decent god-fearing Anglo-Saxon women.
Your right to your religious beliefs is protected. Your right to use your religious beliefs as a shield to deprive other people of their liberties are not.
In the North Carolina situation, what we're seeing is legislation being passed whose sole purpose is to not only facilitate discrimination, but to out and out enforce it. That a trans woman is going to be forced to use a men's restroom, will, along with depriving them of their liberties, end up being so patchily enforced that it raises questions about how the law can even be viewed as legitimate. How precisely is it going to be enforced? How will you determine if a birth certificate represents the person's gender at birth? What if the trans person is from out of state or an immigrant? It strikes me that how it will be enforced is that trans persons who have not completed the reassignment surgery will be the ones who will bear the brunt of this, because they still have their birth genitalia. It will almost certainly be more likely be used to discriminate against trans people who may not have the resources for the cosmetic surgery that someone like Caitlyn Jenner could afford.
Of course, watch out if you're a particularly masculine looking woman or feminine looking man, because ho boy, someone's gonna call the cops and finger you as a pervert, and how will that be resolved? By forcing you to strip to prove you have a penis or a vagina? Doesn't that raise serious civil rights concerns?
And at the end of the day, all a trans person wants to do is use the bloody washroom, like anybody else, without it ending up being held in a lockup and risking being labeled as a sex offender by some hysterical socially conservative reactionaries.
And we used to burn witches at the stake too.
It's no longer considered a mental illness, and seeing as they aren't harming you in the least, why is it that you feel you have some special right to label them as mentally ill and force them to use the washrooms of their birth gender?
That's because this isn't about bathroom privacy or about protecting children, it's about imposing social and religious views out of step with the times. Since a trans woman is going to go into a bathroom stall just like a woman born to that gender, can you explain how anyone's privacy has been breached? And with the current state of gender reassignment surgery for trans men, it isn't likely to often be a problem for men.
You can certainly try to hide your bigotry behind some flimsy wall of privacy and decency, but it doesn't really hold up. Trans women forced to use men's washrooms are going to be at pretty significant risks in some areas, and since they aren't actually bothering you at all, why exactly do you feel your non-right to not feel icky should overwhelm their very legitimate concerns and liberties. What is it you think is going to happen in that stall beside you?
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all trans because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules?
All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every trans person because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
The same crime he was always convicted of.
Let's imagine for a moment a female sex predator sneaking a peak at young girls in a women's washroom, or a male sex predator doing the same in a men's washroom. Are you saying these individuals cannot be prosecuted because they have the right bits under their clothes?
My favorite example is an article in the National Post (a conservative Canadian newspaper) yesterday that intentionally confused the issue, talking, for some reason about people who make $200,000 a year. While it is possible that such individuals may use tax avoidance schemes, even tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, the real beneficiaries of these tax schemes have also been the very rich. But the whole article's intent was to try to get as close to making it sound like the leak was an attack on Mr. and Mrs. Average, it tries to minimize what is being revealed, and normalize it.
And yes, it is true that many of the people using these tax avoidance schemes are breaking no laws, but as tax avoidance is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, and one where merely arguing "it's legal" doesn't protect one from the stigma of not paying one's fair share.
But to my mind, the real issue here is that many of the people who are the greatest beneficiaries of tax havens are directly, or via the significant influence their wealth buys, able to game the system by making sure tax avoidance IS legal at all. How is being in a position to pass a law that protects one's own wealth, by assuring that other people have to cover the difference (translation: everyone who isn't wealthy) not ultimately a very insidious form of corruption?
And that's not even bringing up the fact that creating these tax loopholes has allowed criminals and rogue regimes to wash their own cash and get around sanctions and embargoes makes those who pass these laws culpable for those actions as well.
Who I see this law abusing is transsexuals that haven't had the reassignment surgery yet, and those that may never have it (my understanding is that not all trans individuals have the surgery).
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue this isn't a 21st century version of "She's a Witch! Burn HER!!!!!" because that's what is going to happen. Some poor trans person who hasn't had the reassignment surgery is going to be hauled out by the police as screaming conservative reactionaries demand her head, declared a pervert, just like gay men were in many parts of the western world well into many of our lifetimes, be declared a sex offender, rendered unemployable and have their lives ruined. All so some politicians can pander to the lowest common denominator. And then, in a few years, after the poor woman's life has been trashed, the courts and a growing change in public opinion will wipe the law off the books, and North Carolina will slap itself on the back for entering the modern age. You know, how many Southern Baptists seem so pleased that they decided ten years ago that blacks probably aren't inferior, so now aren't they so very forward thinking.
Which seems the good solution to me. I rather like real privacy, and not the imaginary privacy of a row of urinals.
Just as young children should be exposed to people of different races, creeds and ethnic backgrounds, and introduced to the idea of liberty and equality. That's how you destroy bigotry, by raising children that don't have bigoted views.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Other posters are right. This is just cover for holding Jeebus up high and striking out at people that don't conform to your views. This is exactly how the "Family Values" types try to claim that all gay men are pedophiles. Now suddenly all transexuals are actually peeping toms who want to wear dresses.
Peeping toms have been around forever. This is no different than attacking gay men by somehow linking them to pedophiles.
Do you think forcing someone in a dress to go in a men's room is some sort of demonstration of freedom? What happens, do you suppose, when the first North Carolina transgender teenager has the s--t beaten out of them by the sons of the neanderthals this law is meant to court? I'll tell you what happens. A Federal civil rights challenge that will see NC taxpayers pay out huge amounts of money. And then the court challenges that see the NC Attorney General defend a law that everyone, in particularly the lawmakers who are courting said neanderthals, knows will fail.
Having a person who is transitioning from male to female, or someone who has in fact completely transitioned, use a women's washroom harms no one, but forcing those people to use the men's washroom very likely will end up compromising those individual's civil liberties.
But that's okay, because your prejudices reign a little longer, until the courts force the whole thing in your face. And then, as a final sign of your ultimate impotence, you can complain about them thar darned liberal judges and their interfering ways!