That is why I said "sane" legal system. To the best of my knowledge, the last time suicide was illegal in Germany was in the 3rd Reich, and I am not sure about that one.
And that is wrong from a legal point of view in Germany. There are stages at which people get legal autonomy. For example, at 14 they get religious autonomy and their parents from that time have no legal authority anymore about that question. For example, at 14 you can legally exit a church on your own say-so. People also get economic decision power to some degree at different ages and can do binding contracts up to certain amounts and of certain natures. And no, their stuff does not belong to their parents when it was legally acquired by them.
Yours is also a hugely immoral stance as you basically advocate that children are their parents property. I find that idea quite repulsive.
Incidentally, "privacy" is a human right and applies to anybody being recognized as human. It can only be limited because circumstances force that, e.g. for a toddler. But somebody 15 years of age certainly has that human right mostly in its full form.
Yes. Her parents rights are temporary and only founded on the situation of being active as her parents and doing parenting. That is not the case anymore. Her rights are proper rights and do not expire.
Indeed. Basically the court said that her privacy is more important than her parents being able to snoop through her stuff. (That she is dead is immaterial for her right to privacy.) That may be hard to people from a privacy-challenged country like the US to understand, but I think it has more than a little merit.
We have a Caterpillar generator the size of a schoolbus (and given its coloring I've had to restrain myself from sticking a stop-sign on the side as a prank) and a sophisticated transfer switch with power monitoring. When we lose power the batteries hold the DC over until the generator kicks in, and then when power is restored we do not switch back to grid immediately. I am not the person that deals with the power, but as I understand it, the generator and transfer switch monitors the grid for some time before switching back to grid, and there are power conditioners in between. On top of that, the system monitors grid power continuously and will intentionally island the system if there's a significant enough fault.
This is not for something as critical as an airline's control system either. I do not find any reasonable excuse to blame power; you're supposed to assume that power is dirty and unreliable and to work around it.
That is how it is done. It is well-known that power often comes back up "unclean" after a failure.
It is pretty clear that BA leadership screwed up massively here and yes, it is most decidedly an IT problem. The described power-outage scenario is a complete standard one and competent planning prepares for it. Now they are trying to misdirect (i.e. lie) in order to make it appear like this was a natural disaster and of course, they could not have done anything about that. Dishonorable, untrue, but nicely demonstrates the defective characters of the people in power at BA.
The only right thing to do is kick out the ones responsible (including the CEO) with a performance review that makes sure they never get any other leadership position. Otherwise these people will continue to do damage.
Obviously you are not interested in any kind of discussion at all and have just seen your points vanishing into thin air. Hence you run away like a coward. Pathetic.
Indeed. Or rather automation ("weak AI") is getting to a point where it can fake the performance of an average person in a standard situation well enough to be overall superior to that average person. Most work-hours for most people are standard situations. (I basically have none of these, and some people here will have the same, but that does not invalidate the point.) If you, say, replace a fleet of 1000 Taxis with self-driving cars and add 10 remote operators for the few situations the car cannot deal with by itself, then you have 10 new, probably pretty well-paid jobs and you have lost 1000 other ones. Car production and maintenance stays the same, but driving them for pay has just vanished. So while you _have_ created jobs, you have overall decreased the number of jobs significantly. And that is what happens in other fields as well: Humans are only still needed for abnormal situations (as weak AI cannot deal with these), but these are both not "average skill" people and far fewer are needed than before.
Because before, human-operated technology was replaced by other human-operated technology. That is, for the first time in history, not the case anymore.
That seems to be the case, yes. One seems to think that men and women must be separated whenever the circumstances are more "private", because otherwise the men will just rape the women immediately. Kind of the mind-set that dives the treatment of women in, say, Saudi-Arabia. Of course, the mere idea of a trans-person throws a spanner into the mental gears for these people, as it shows the whole train of thought is defective. Hence they do what not-too-smart people often do when faced with a situation they do not understand: They try to pretend it does not exist, up to and including the completely counter-factual claim that trans-people actually do not exist. Quite a few also resort to violence.
There very likely is also a strong element of gender-insecurity here on this side, akin to the little fact that the most violently anti-gay people are usually secretly gay.
The other side thinks this a) does not apply to bathrooms (they are not really private, after all) and that men that rape are b) rare and c) a "bathroom-law" will do nothing to help against them and that the whole discussion is entirely misguided.
Now giving examples of people doing inappropriate things in locker-rooms and showers does fit with the first stance (men are animals and must never be in private with women, possibly except when married to them), but it does not fit into a "bathroom" law at all, unless you have open showers in public toilets (I have never seen that).
That sounds very much like a complete fabrication, fueled by irrational fears of men being animals. The actual thing that happen when a woman goes into a men's bathroom (I have seen it several times in similar circumstances) is: Nothing at all. Maybe some people at the urinal will shift a bit to not expose themselves, but that is it.
The first one sounds like a massive over-reaction to me, fueled in part by an over-active imagination. Also note that even so no in any way obvious "perving out" was reported.
The other ones are locker-room incidents. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Indeed. The whole set of "arguments" given is fully bogus and is based on some deranged idea that people that have some issues with their gender identity and did something about it are a danger to others much more so than regular people. It is basically "fear of the unknown" in a really stupid and extreme form. Of course, the numbers do not support that claim, but there are apparently so many people out there that are deeply afraid of anything that challenges their own gender identity in the slightest that they become completely irrational.
Also, nobody with at least some residual rationality would plan (and that is what "putting on a dress to do it" means) a rape in a public bathroom. After all, somebody else can walk in at any time.
An what has that to do with the current discussion? Oh, right, nothing at all. Because, you know, a rapist intent on acting will not be deterred by a law that says he cannot go into that room and rape happens to already carry some pretty harsh penalties. So again, what could happen to that small child there that a law about trans-people not being allowed in a specific bathroom could change?
And that would not happen in, say, a waiting queue or a crowd of people or in an elevator? Oh, wait, it usually does not. News for you: Most people are not animals. I guess you do not qualify, though.
Ah yes, that one. These people cause a significant amount of the pain and suffering in the world and do so without good reason. Not even greed, just because they have an issue with somebody else not being like them.
That is a complete fabrication which probably stems from your complete ignorance how this works. Might as well claim all ACs were abused as children, that has about as much factual basis.
Slashdot Mirror
That is why I said "sane" legal system. To the best of my knowledge, the last time suicide was illegal in Germany was in the 3rd Reich, and I am not sure about that one.
Committing suicide is not a crime. At least not in any sane legal system.
Good point.
And that is wrong from a legal point of view in Germany. There are stages at which people get legal autonomy. For example, at 14 they get religious autonomy and their parents from that time have no legal authority anymore about that question. For example, at 14 you can legally exit a church on your own say-so. People also get economic decision power to some degree at different ages and can do binding contracts up to certain amounts and of certain natures. And no, their stuff does not belong to their parents when it was legally acquired by them.
Yours is also a hugely immoral stance as you basically advocate that children are their parents property. I find that idea quite repulsive.
Incidentally, "privacy" is a human right and applies to anybody being recognized as human. It can only be limited because circumstances force that, e.g. for a toddler. But somebody 15 years of age certainly has that human right mostly in its full form.
Yes. Her parents rights are temporary and only founded on the situation of being active as her parents and doing parenting. That is not the case anymore. Her rights are proper rights and do not expire.
Indeed. Basically the court said that her privacy is more important than her parents being able to snoop through her stuff. (That she is dead is immaterial for her right to privacy.) That may be hard to people from a privacy-challenged country like the US to understand, but I think it has more than a little merit.
It is in fact a standard scenario.
Yep.
We have a Caterpillar generator the size of a schoolbus (and given its coloring I've had to restrain myself from sticking a stop-sign on the side as a prank) and a sophisticated transfer switch with power monitoring. When we lose power the batteries hold the DC over until the generator kicks in, and then when power is restored we do not switch back to grid immediately. I am not the person that deals with the power, but as I understand it, the generator and transfer switch monitors the grid for some time before switching back to grid, and there are power conditioners in between. On top of that, the system monitors grid power continuously and will intentionally island the system if there's a significant enough fault.
This is not for something as critical as an airline's control system either. I do not find any reasonable excuse to blame power; you're supposed to assume that power is dirty and unreliable and to work around it.
That is how it is done. It is well-known that power often comes back up "unclean" after a failure.
"most hilariously inept" covers it well.
It is pretty clear that BA leadership screwed up massively here and yes, it is most decidedly an IT problem. The described power-outage scenario is a complete standard one and competent planning prepares for it. Now they are trying to misdirect (i.e. lie) in order to make it appear like this was a natural disaster and of course, they could not have done anything about that. Dishonorable, untrue, but nicely demonstrates the defective characters of the people in power at BA.
The only right thing to do is kick out the ones responsible (including the CEO) with a performance review that makes sure they never get any other leadership position. Otherwise these people will continue to do damage.
Obviously you are not interested in any kind of discussion at all and have just seen your points vanishing into thin air. Hence you run away like a coward. Pathetic.
And then build it and put it on my phone? That may finally convince me to go to Android.
Indeed. Or rather automation ("weak AI") is getting to a point where it can fake the performance of an average person in a standard situation well enough to be overall superior to that average person. Most work-hours for most people are standard situations. (I basically have none of these, and some people here will have the same, but that does not invalidate the point.) If you, say, replace a fleet of 1000 Taxis with self-driving cars and add 10 remote operators for the few situations the car cannot deal with by itself, then you have 10 new, probably pretty well-paid jobs and you have lost 1000 other ones. Car production and maintenance stays the same, but driving them for pay has just vanished. So while you _have_ created jobs, you have overall decreased the number of jobs significantly. And that is what happens in other fields as well: Humans are only still needed for abnormal situations (as weak AI cannot deal with these), but these are both not "average skill" people and far fewer are needed than before.
Because before, human-operated technology was replaced by other human-operated technology. That is, for the first time in history, not the case anymore.
That seems to be the case, yes. One seems to think that men and women must be separated whenever the circumstances are more "private", because otherwise the men will just rape the women immediately. Kind of the mind-set that dives the treatment of women in, say, Saudi-Arabia. Of course, the mere idea of a trans-person throws a spanner into the mental gears for these people, as it shows the whole train of thought is defective. Hence they do what not-too-smart people often do when faced with a situation they do not understand: They try to pretend it does not exist, up to and including the completely counter-factual claim that trans-people actually do not exist. Quite a few also resort to violence.
There very likely is also a strong element of gender-insecurity here on this side, akin to the little fact that the most violently anti-gay people are usually secretly gay.
The other side thinks this a) does not apply to bathrooms (they are not really private, after all) and that men that rape are b) rare and c) a "bathroom-law" will do nothing to help against them and that the whole discussion is entirely misguided.
Now giving examples of people doing inappropriate things in locker-rooms and showers does fit with the first stance (men are animals and must never be in private with women, possibly except when married to them), but it does not fit into a "bathroom" law at all, unless you have open showers in public toilets (I have never seen that).
That sounds very much like a complete fabrication, fueled by irrational fears of men being animals. The actual thing that happen when a woman goes into a men's bathroom (I have seen it several times in similar circumstances) is: Nothing at all. Maybe some people at the urinal will shift a bit to not expose themselves, but that is it.
The first one sounds like a massive over-reaction to me, fueled in part by an over-active imagination. Also note that even so no in any way obvious "perving out" was reported.
The other ones are locker-room incidents. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
So far you have nothing.
Indeed. The whole set of "arguments" given is fully bogus and is based on some deranged idea that people that have some issues with their gender identity and did something about it are a danger to others much more so than regular people. It is basically "fear of the unknown" in a really stupid and extreme form. Of course, the numbers do not support that claim, but there are apparently so many people out there that are deeply afraid of anything that challenges their own gender identity in the slightest that they become completely irrational.
Also, nobody with at least some residual rationality would plan (and that is what "putting on a dress to do it" means) a rape in a public bathroom. After all, somebody else can walk in at any time.
An what has that to do with the current discussion? Oh, right, nothing at all. Because, you know, a rapist intent on acting will not be deterred by a law that says he cannot go into that room and rape happens to already carry some pretty harsh penalties. So again, what could happen to that small child there that a law about trans-people not being allowed in a specific bathroom could change?
And that would not happen in, say, a waiting queue or a crowd of people or in an elevator? Oh, wait, it usually does not. News for you: Most people are not animals. I guess you do not qualify, though.
Ah yes, that one. These people cause a significant amount of the pain and suffering in the world and do so without good reason. Not even greed, just because they have an issue with somebody else not being like them.
You are sick. Probably you are much more of a danger to others than the typical trans person could ever be.
And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us. Watching while they fixed their makeup? Or what?
That is a complete fabrication which probably stems from your complete ignorance how this works. Might as well claim all ACs were abused as children, that has about as much factual basis.
And what, please tell us, could happen to that small child here? Some wrong sex-rays being projected through a stall wall or what?