Freedom is not unlimited. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bans the teaching of Creationism in publicly-funded schools. Period. This battle was fought and lost two decades ago, and it's not as if the Constitution magically changed in the meantime.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The Uk has no right to storm the embassy. What the letter said, apparently, is that the British gOvernment could revoke the Embassy's extraterritorial status, removing all extraterritorial protections. Any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention can do that, though the intention certainly isn't to go after accused rapists, but rather for severe diplomatic incidents, declarations of war and the like. Of course, once the Embassy ceases to be recognized as such by the British government, nothing more is required than an arrest warrant.
That all being said, actually doing it would create a major diplomatic shitstorm, so I think it is a lot of hot air.
Now Assange actually getting out of the Embassy without being arrested, that is a whole other story. That is what the large number of police hanging around the Embassy seem to be hoping to stop.
Then why not something like Smalltalk? Javascript is unsuited to this task. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking about a more unsuitable language. Maybe Brainfuck?
In Assange's case, I'm thinking the most often used phrase will be "Dónde puedo encontrar las prostitutas pervertidos?" followed by "Puedes encontrar a mi abogado?"
This is purely your own private definitions. It certainly isn't definitions that any biologist would agree to. Hell, it's not even the definition of natural selection Darwin used. But please, continue to show how pig ignorant you are.
I'm not angry at all. The fact is that a massive number of genetic mutations in a population within a few generations from something like ionizing radiation or some other agent does not lead to greater fitness, but almost inevitably to lesser fitness; deleterious morphological changes (ie. malformed wings, eyes, internal organs) and increase in various cancers. Insects get an edge, in general, because fast breeding and lots of offspring can counterbalance such effects, and eventually, you will see some population that can return to some level of fitness, but that doesn't mean that dangerous doses of ionizing radiation is somehow potentially healthy, just because you get some potential survivors, any more than firing into a chicken coop with a shotgun and still having some chickens manage to survive means shotguns are potentially good for chicken survival. It's an absurd position.
We're not talking about the generally intermittent nature of natural genetic changes that occur under normal conditions. We're talking about populations being blasted with radiation of sufficient strength to cause massive morphological changes within a generation or two. Evolution isn't some superhero comic book, and there are levels of radiation that make any population much less fit to related populations outside the environment that caused this.
Indeed. "Why, you can't call those malignant growths in your lungs harmful until you actually die. For all you know, they could give you superpowers!"
When you have severely malformed wings and eyes and other developmental abnormalities of a clearly genetic nature in a population, many of which are clearly deleterious from a purely fitness measurement, then it's not going over the top to call it "damage".
Oh, I see, so this is some sort of semantics pissing match you want to win. Call it what you like, but the odds are far greater that we're going to be dealing with very few beneficial mutations, and more than likely a good many bad ones, but hey, if it somehow makes you feel like you've won a debate, then so be it. In fact, I recommend you go and get some substantial dosage of radiation right now. After all, you can't call it damage until your dick falls off.
Until the Tea Party is exorcised from the Republican Party, you're going to have presidential candidates being forced to pick these types of running mates. McCain in his turn had little choice but to find someone who could appeal to "the base".
You get accused of sexual assault and you come into my office with a whole "PC/cultural marxist" set of excuses for your behavior, and you call me the sociopath?
The only case were termination is justified is physical assault (which should be the case regardless of gender or type of assault). Verbal statements, directed towards anyone, or simply overheard is not abuse.
Absolute bullshit, and also very very very wrong. You can be terminated with cause for making general or directed sexual comments. You are not immune, and why would you be doing those things at work anyways?
Look, when you're on the job, you're not paid to make dirty jokes or throw sexual innuendo around. You're there to do a job. Why do you go to so much effort to try to protect attitudes that have no place in the workplace. Are you a child, that you cannot hold your impulses until after work?
Do you fart in chart, do you piss in your neighbor's swimming pool? Does anyone who takes you to task for it get labeled with make-believe titles like "cultural marxist"?
Again, do your fucking job and behave like a fucking adult. Being an IT geek doesn't give you a free pass on being a decent human being.
You should call the cops if someone is assaulted. "Defend the community" is the bullshit excuse for trying to protect your own skin at the potential cost of others.
No organization is so important or so big that it shouldn't be brought to task for hiding sexual misconduct. Just ask the Catholic Church. Imagine, fifty years ago, if the Vatican had just decided that every time a priest interfered with a minor, they would call the police rather than trying to bury it "for the good of the community". Sure, there would have been short term repercussions, but in the long run there would have been no bankrupt diocese, no monumental world-wide scandal.
It's short term thinking that leads to the kind of decisions you want DefCon to make. The whole "we are special so we should get a free pass" mentality is part of the problem, and not part of the solution. So is coming with faux sociological crapola like "gender war". Try that one on the judge when you're defending yourself against allegations you buried sexual assaults.
The hacker community isn't an ordinary community, it's a demonized community by the media
I also would like to see the divide and conquer gender war political BS avoided. If there is a problem with Defcon it certainly should be handled internally as there are many qualified people at Defcon.
Replace hacker with "Catholic Church" or "local chapter of the Benevolent Beavers", and it comes out the same way. If you don't call the cops and you try to bury these sorts of allegations you do two things: 1. You create an environment in which it's more likely to happen, and 2. You risk at some point the whole thing catching up with you. Every organization always has some excuse for why it doesn't want the police involved, but at the end of the day, sexual assault is a felony offence, and, whether you like it or not or whether it agrees with whatever bizarre sexual ideology you seem to hold to, not reporting felonies can get you in deep, and rightfully so.
No one, not even a pack of hackers, is above the law. If someone is sexually assaulted at DefCon, the police should be immediately informed.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the seed of every organizational sex scandal coverup in history. "Let's deal with this in-house. Don't want to give the organization a bad name."
Down that path, my friend, lies multimillion dollar payouts, jail time not only for the offenders, but also for those that tried to hide the ill deeds.
That someone could seriously write this kind of a post weeks after the Penn State report is absolutely extraordinary.
Some guy grabs a woman's crotch and he's caught, call the cops. He commitez a felony, and if you try to bury it with internal "discipline", you've just commited one too.
As a director of my company, if you were dragged into my office over unbecoming behavior of a coworker of the opposite sex and threw the load of bullshit you just typed as your justification, you would be out on your ass in about ten seconds.
Do your fucking job and behave like a fucking adult.
You can spin this any way you want, but the fact is you made an absurd claim, and now it turns out, when you boil away all that faux petulance, you don't have the balls to either back up your claim or admit you cannot.
And yes, my immoral' cowardly friend, it's always the obligation of someone making a claim to provide evidence.
Or, in shorter words, you're a ball-less lying sack of shit.
Whether it's Slashdot or anywhere else, it is the responsibility of the one making a claim, in particular an extraordinary one, to provide the evidence. Now I realize you probably hold every other poster in contempt, otherwise you wouldn't make such a claim and then evade your responsibilities. But I hope you never imagine that you didn't show yourself for who you truly are.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom is not unlimited. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bans the teaching of Creationism in publicly-funded schools. Period. This battle was fought and lost two decades ago, and it's not as if the Constitution magically changed in the meantime.
I'm curious. Why do you want local authorities to have the power to violate the constitution?
It's a bit more complicated than that. The Uk has no right to storm the embassy. What the letter said, apparently, is that the British gOvernment could revoke the Embassy's extraterritorial status, removing all extraterritorial protections. Any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention can do that, though the intention certainly isn't to go after accused rapists, but rather for severe diplomatic incidents, declarations of war and the like. Of course, once the Embassy ceases to be recognized as such by the British government, nothing more is required than an arrest warrant.
That all being said, actually doing it would create a major diplomatic shitstorm, so I think it is a lot of hot air.
Now Assange actually getting out of the Embassy without being arrested, that is a whole other story. That is what the large number of police hanging around the Embassy seem to be hoping to stop.
You'll pay it and like it! Now, whose your daddy? I ASKED, WHOSE YOUR DADDY?!?!?!
Then why not something like Smalltalk? Javascript is unsuited to this task. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking about a more unsuitable language. Maybe Brainfuck?
In Assange's case, I'm thinking the most often used phrase will be "Dónde puedo encontrar las prostitutas pervertidos?" followed by "Puedes encontrar a mi abogado?"
That's not Darwinism 101 at all. In fact, plenty of lineages just go extinct when confronted with environmental pressures that they cannot adapt to.
This is purely your own private definitions. It certainly isn't definitions that any biologist would agree to. Hell, it's not even the definition of natural selection Darwin used. But please, continue to show how pig ignorant you are.
I'm not angry at all. The fact is that a massive number of genetic mutations in a population within a few generations from something like ionizing radiation or some other agent does not lead to greater fitness, but almost inevitably to lesser fitness; deleterious morphological changes (ie. malformed wings, eyes, internal organs) and increase in various cancers. Insects get an edge, in general, because fast breeding and lots of offspring can counterbalance such effects, and eventually, you will see some population that can return to some level of fitness, but that doesn't mean that dangerous doses of ionizing radiation is somehow potentially healthy, just because you get some potential survivors, any more than firing into a chicken coop with a shotgun and still having some chickens manage to survive means shotguns are potentially good for chicken survival. It's an absurd position.
We're not talking about the generally intermittent nature of natural genetic changes that occur under normal conditions. We're talking about populations being blasted with radiation of sufficient strength to cause massive morphological changes within a generation or two. Evolution isn't some superhero comic book, and there are levels of radiation that make any population much less fit to related populations outside the environment that caused this.
Indeed. "Why, you can't call those malignant growths in your lungs harmful until you actually die. For all you know, they could give you superpowers!"
When you have severely malformed wings and eyes and other developmental abnormalities of a clearly genetic nature in a population, many of which are clearly deleterious from a purely fitness measurement, then it's not going over the top to call it "damage".
Oh, I see, so this is some sort of semantics pissing match you want to win. Call it what you like, but the odds are far greater that we're going to be dealing with very few beneficial mutations, and more than likely a good many bad ones, but hey, if it somehow makes you feel like you've won a debate, then so be it. In fact, I recommend you go and get some substantial dosage of radiation right now. After all, you can't call it damage until your dick falls off.
It's a substantial change in a population post-incident. Whether the changes are beneficial or not is besides the point.
Until the Tea Party is exorcised from the Republican Party, you're going to have presidential candidates being forced to pick these types of running mates. McCain in his turn had little choice but to find someone who could appeal to "the base".
Where, at the sexual offender treatment program?
You get accused of sexual assault and you come into my office with a whole "PC/cultural marxist" set of excuses for your behavior, and you call me the sociopath?
Absolute bullshit, and also very very very wrong. You can be terminated with cause for making general or directed sexual comments. You are not immune, and why would you be doing those things at work anyways?
Look, when you're on the job, you're not paid to make dirty jokes or throw sexual innuendo around. You're there to do a job. Why do you go to so much effort to try to protect attitudes that have no place in the workplace. Are you a child, that you cannot hold your impulses until after work?
Do you fart in chart, do you piss in your neighbor's swimming pool? Does anyone who takes you to task for it get labeled with make-believe titles like "cultural marxist"?
Again, do your fucking job and behave like a fucking adult. Being an IT geek doesn't give you a free pass on being a decent human being.
You should call the cops if someone is assaulted. "Defend the community" is the bullshit excuse for trying to protect your own skin at the potential cost of others.
No organization is so important or so big that it shouldn't be brought to task for hiding sexual misconduct. Just ask the Catholic Church. Imagine, fifty years ago, if the Vatican had just decided that every time a priest interfered with a minor, they would call the police rather than trying to bury it "for the good of the community". Sure, there would have been short term repercussions, but in the long run there would have been no bankrupt diocese, no monumental world-wide scandal.
It's short term thinking that leads to the kind of decisions you want DefCon to make. The whole "we are special so we should get a free pass" mentality is part of the problem, and not part of the solution. So is coming with faux sociological crapola like "gender war". Try that one on the judge when you're defending yourself against allegations you buried sexual assaults.
Replace hacker with "Catholic Church" or "local chapter of the Benevolent Beavers", and it comes out the same way. If you don't call the cops and you try to bury these sorts of allegations you do two things: 1. You create an environment in which it's more likely to happen, and 2. You risk at some point the whole thing catching up with you. Every organization always has some excuse for why it doesn't want the police involved, but at the end of the day, sexual assault is a felony offence, and, whether you like it or not or whether it agrees with whatever bizarre sexual ideology you seem to hold to, not reporting felonies can get you in deep, and rightfully so.
No one, not even a pack of hackers, is above the law. If someone is sexually assaulted at DefCon, the police should be immediately informed.
I especially want to bail out of the ship when the SEC is going to start sniffing around.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the seed of every organizational sex scandal coverup in history. "Let's deal with this in-house. Don't want to give the organization a bad name."
Down that path, my friend, lies multimillion dollar payouts, jail time not only for the offenders, but also for those that tried to hide the ill deeds.
That someone could seriously write this kind of a post weeks after the Penn State report is absolutely extraordinary.
Some guy grabs a woman's crotch and he's caught, call the cops. He commitez a felony, and if you try to bury it with internal "discipline", you've just commited one too.
As a director of my company, if you were dragged into my office over unbecoming behavior of a coworker of the opposite sex and threw the load of bullshit you just typed as your justification, you would be out on your ass in about ten seconds.
Do your fucking job and behave like a fucking adult.
Born on probation at least.
You can spin this any way you want, but the fact is you made an absurd claim, and now it turns out, when you boil away all that faux petulance, you don't have the balls to either back up your claim or admit you cannot.
And yes, my immoral' cowardly friend, it's always the obligation of someone making a claim to provide evidence.
Or, in shorter words, you're a ball-less lying sack of shit.
Whether it's Slashdot or anywhere else, it is the responsibility of the one making a claim, in particular an extraordinary one, to provide the evidence. Now I realize you probably hold every other poster in contempt, otherwise you wouldn't make such a claim and then evade your responsibilities. But I hope you never imagine that you didn't show yourself for who you truly are.