This is a site with a lot of transgender, gay, straight, male, female, geeky, tall, small, christian, muslim, atheist, etcetera people, basically all sorts of people. There are always *some* people who think a certain remark is hurtful, especially if a joke is make at their expense. There are of course remarks that 'go too far', but I think people will automatically be considered assholes for this, no need to start forcing everyone to be all PC. We cannot be considerate to all people from all walks of life, especially if you consider some groups have opposing beliefs. A joke about a certain group of people does not imply an attack, it's only perceived that way by some overly PC persons whether from that group or just for the sake of pointing out that you have to be PC. But it's wildly unrealistic to keep everybody happy and still allow people the freedom to speak their mind, talk about facts, or simply express humor.
I am personally not offended by anything (at worst I will think someone is an asshole for trolling). But I have one exception: I will take offense to people who take offense. In this single statement you can see the paradox caused by trying to be PC for everyone. And I do not joke, I really mean that I have a problem with people who are trying to convince others of what they cannot say because they think so. Pay attention and you'll see that often those same people will claim it's okay to say the same statement about another group of people, just not about them. It's not about doing right to all, it's about their own personal issues. People need to decide what they think is okay for themselves and act according to that themselves, not tell others what they need to do and don't apply it to themselves.
The Wikipedia page you pointed to has dead links in the references. The correct data can be found here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
It is also worth pointing out that although males are more likely to kill, they are also more likely to be killed. This suggests that a large amount of the murders comes from male-to-male violence.
Furthermore there is no mention in the statistics of involvement of women, but from anecdotes you can assume that in a lot of cases a violent outburst involving a group of men and a women results in the man (generally being the physically stronger one) takes on the role of the defender/aggressor. Whether based on culture or evolutionary psychology males are more likely to commit violence beside the predisposition purely based on gender physiology. You understand how this might skew statistics, and might lead to the false impression that men are inherently more dangerous.
I also completely agree that men and women are equal but their differences (and especially strong points) should not be hidden to be PC. Men have a different psychology, and asking for directions is something they are more reluctant to do because it can be construed as a sign of defeat. But there is a difference between factual gender specific traits and clichés. When you start complaining about men and the toilet (mostly based on assumption) it's just feeding another common chiché about women...
Bigotry does not target transsexuals persé, more generally everyone slightly different...
I sometimes wonder if some people who purposely attempt to look 'different' do it just to complain about people who react strongly to this. I recently read an article about vamp-goths who protested that they were discriminated because people look at them all the time because they are different and my first thought was "isn't that exactly the point?".
I suspect that there are some very insecure people in all groups who always look to be the victim and go to extreme lengths to put themselves in a position to feel that way, these are the people you will also find 'foaming at the mouth' in their internet forum posts.
In general people just want to live their lives, whether straigt, gay, trans or just dressed a little different. They also just want to be left alone by bigots, but realize that although there is injustice in the world that has to change it's not something that can be forced and a few incidents with those idiots does not mean the whole world is against you.
Be who you want to be, and don't be afraid. Also don't think that people are out to get you, most things would just be innocent if you don't think about it twice. When someone calls you 'dude' it's an honest mistake, and in my opinion not even a mistake since I regard 'dude' in the modern interpretation the same as 'fellow', that is non-gender specific (my girlfriend is one of the 'dudes' for instance). Furthermore I have been called a woman many times on account of my long hair, and I don't think twice about it... People who regard themselves as special often react to much like they are attacked, just regard yourself as normal (in a sense every person is normal no matter their conformity to standards of society) and who you want to be and you'll be fine.
Ah great, I always wondered what the rule of thumb would roughly be... but is that 4 meters around? So a 20 meter asteroid would be 12 meter crashing down in flames, correct?
I always hear this argument, but it never stopped SSH or SFTP. You simply store the key as 'trusted' the first time and you have a fair protection against MITM attacks from then on. And considering the fact that the unencrypted variants (telnet, FTP, and HTTP just the same) are all vulnerable to MITM attacks as well as password interception etc. it's no valid reason not to use encryption with SSC. It's several factors more secure.
Problems holding this back now:
- Onion routing: has too little exit nodes and too many hops severely reducing the available bandwidth. The throughput and latency are too high to replace the internet for anything but basic sites and communication.
- Pervasive email encryption: requires cooperation from a lot of parties, who have their own interest in reading your mail (Google with advertising for example). It will only work when you can reliably send encrypted mail to anyone and know for sure they will be able to read it.
- More widespread use of SSL: requires self-signed certificates to be accepted by mayor browsers as an intermediate security between insecure HTTP and validated HTTPS. Currently they are all unwilling to recognize SSC HTTPS as 'somewhat more secure than HTTP'.
- VPN darknet: requires relatively expensive centralized infrastructure to be of any useful size, although you could create an internet of smaller darknets by some means of VPN peering. But you might run into bandwidth issues again...
I do not know any other factors that hold these technologies back from the top of my head now, but i'm fairly sure some other Slashdotters can amend (and no doubt correct) this list.
You make an excellent point. That is why it's generally considered unsafe just to look just at the taillights of the car in front of you. Instead you are supposed to carefully observe the entire road ahead of you and identify obstacles that the car in front of you might have missed. While this is not possible behind a large truck those generally don't drive all that fast.
But when you name this as the limiting factor of speed - which it is - you can infer that because both the brakes (with ABS etc.) and the crash safety of cars have been vastly improved, theoretically a faster speed should be possible without causing more deaths. And statistically the autobahn in Germany is safer than most highways.
On the German autobahn I feel safer driving 200 km/h than some places in The Netherlands driving 100 km/h, but this is especially because the Germans drive better and keep a proper distance (well, in general, not always). Driving faster does require you to use your mirrors more often, because an Audi in the distance can be right behind you in a matter of seconds, even if you yourself already drive 200.
Tailgating is always unsafe, but it depends on your definition of distance. Distance should be measured in seconds, not metres. And in that case: Yes, the same distance that is safe at 100 is safe at 400 km/h. The distance is sufficient for the human response time to start braking when the person in from of you brakes. When you travel at the same speed it does not matter if you drive 50, 100, 200 or 400 km/h.
Great plan! It would take care of the whole 'right to internet' idea, and make the US one of the first countries to effectively roll out some form of free internet to all citizens. Putting the country at the forefront of modern rights for its citizens. Any government 'for the people' would jump at this idea...
Yeah, I can see how the corporatocracy would think this is a bad idea. There is no profit in citizen rights...
Humans have been shown to have reaction times easily capable of speeds 4 times faster, and probably much more given the right conditions. The reason for speed limits on highways is not the reaction time, but massive increase in damage and inherent lower survivability. Given that car-safety has improved a *lot* (not only in collision situations, but also braking and handling) you would expect the maximum speeds to increase somewhat. But the original reasoning seems forgotten...
There is no "one-size-fits-all, completely permanent" solution to assholes.
Some extreme solutions prove the contrary.;)
But yeah, I see your point. Different people, different solutions. But for a disorder to have truly different levels of effect you would expect there to be some kind of spectrum... In that case the asshole who doesn't realize he's a jerk could very well be a very mild case sociopath. It's about lack of empathy right? And there is of course a spectrum of empathy ranging from absolutely none (sociopath) to a huge fucking lot, with neither end allowing people to function properly.
Why is that always the only response you see when someone points out these kind of covert operations perpetrated by the USA they immediately associate the person with being a communist? You probably didn't get the memo that this centuries FUD is supposed to be about terrorists... The cold war is over, so take your communist-FUD and stick in you own red star.
No, that simply isn't possible. Everyone knows that USA and UK only invade to bring Democracy! They would never overthrow democratically elected governments to install dictator regimes only for US economic gains!
I can know it because I saw it on TV, they even super-duper-swore it to be true on Fox.
You make a good point, but the problem is some holes cannot be fixed (inherently)...
So that leaves conditioning as the only working treatment. But some things can't be punished by law currently (and neither should there be a law against anything and everthing).
But it's also possible to condition without punishment, but what kind of conditioning would work well on a sociopath?
If you're using internet explorer, you deserve every known bug that M$ neglects to patch for a long long time.
FTFY. All mayor browsers except Opera suffered from this attack vector, but all others patched it fairly fast. This isn't a problem with bugs, this is a problem with the patching of those bugs, and M$ shows how little they care for customers every day they leave exposing bugs like this and many others unpatched for *years*.
Excellent example. The question that now remains is: How do you deal with sociopaths? Is the only solution to force them to feel exactly like their victims? Your example seems to indicate there is no 'hey, maybe I did unto others...' moment for sociopaths, so will they ever truly learn from their mistakes? Hmmm, the cynic in me knows the answer is probably 'They will learn not to get caught next time'.
Yeah, it kinda works like that already. But for efficiency you pay *after* the fact, and *after* you get caught, giving you a chance to get away with it for free. But when you do get caught this monetary transaction is can be made during several stages of prosecution, in general being: police, DA, judge, super-lawyers. The amount you need to spend may increase over time and no guarantees can be made... But in general the system works like this and has worked like this for a long long time.
Nevada is just innovative because they give you the option to pay (a bribe) *before* a minor infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a site with a lot of transgender, gay, straight, male, female, geeky, tall, small, christian, muslim, atheist, etcetera people, basically all sorts of people. There are always *some* people who think a certain remark is hurtful, especially if a joke is make at their expense. There are of course remarks that 'go too far', but I think people will automatically be considered assholes for this, no need to start forcing everyone to be all PC. We cannot be considerate to all people from all walks of life, especially if you consider some groups have opposing beliefs. A joke about a certain group of people does not imply an attack, it's only perceived that way by some overly PC persons whether from that group or just for the sake of pointing out that you have to be PC. But it's wildly unrealistic to keep everybody happy and still allow people the freedom to speak their mind, talk about facts, or simply express humor.
I am personally not offended by anything (at worst I will think someone is an asshole for trolling). But I have one exception: I will take offense to people who take offense. In this single statement you can see the paradox caused by trying to be PC for everyone. And I do not joke, I really mean that I have a problem with people who are trying to convince others of what they cannot say because they think so. Pay attention and you'll see that often those same people will claim it's okay to say the same statement about another group of people, just not about them. It's not about doing right to all, it's about their own personal issues. People need to decide what they think is okay for themselves and act according to that themselves, not tell others what they need to do and don't apply it to themselves.
The Wikipedia page you pointed to has dead links in the references. The correct data can be found here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
It is also worth pointing out that although males are more likely to kill, they are also more likely to be killed. This suggests that a large amount of the murders comes from male-to-male violence.
Furthermore there is no mention in the statistics of involvement of women, but from anecdotes you can assume that in a lot of cases a violent outburst involving a group of men and a women results in the man (generally being the physically stronger one) takes on the role of the defender/aggressor. Whether based on culture or evolutionary psychology males are more likely to commit violence beside the predisposition purely based on gender physiology. You understand how this might skew statistics, and might lead to the false impression that men are inherently more dangerous.
I also completely agree that men and women are equal but their differences (and especially strong points) should not be hidden to be PC. Men have a different psychology, and asking for directions is something they are more reluctant to do because it can be construed as a sign of defeat. But there is a difference between factual gender specific traits and clichés. When you start complaining about men and the toilet (mostly based on assumption) it's just feeding another common chiché about women...
Bigotry does not target transsexuals persé, more generally everyone slightly different...
I sometimes wonder if some people who purposely attempt to look 'different' do it just to complain about people who react strongly to this. I recently read an article about vamp-goths who protested that they were discriminated because people look at them all the time because they are different and my first thought was "isn't that exactly the point?".
I suspect that there are some very insecure people in all groups who always look to be the victim and go to extreme lengths to put themselves in a position to feel that way, these are the people you will also find 'foaming at the mouth' in their internet forum posts.
In general people just want to live their lives, whether straigt, gay, trans or just dressed a little different. They also just want to be left alone by bigots, but realize that although there is injustice in the world that has to change it's not something that can be forced and a few incidents with those idiots does not mean the whole world is against you.
Be who you want to be, and don't be afraid. Also don't think that people are out to get you, most things would just be innocent if you don't think about it twice. When someone calls you 'dude' it's an honest mistake, and in my opinion not even a mistake since I regard 'dude' in the modern interpretation the same as 'fellow', that is non-gender specific (my girlfriend is one of the 'dudes' for instance). Furthermore I have been called a woman many times on account of my long hair, and I don't think twice about it... People who regard themselves as special often react to much like they are attacked, just regard yourself as normal (in a sense every person is normal no matter their conformity to standards of society) and who you want to be and you'll be fine.
Apparently Google is also prescient of evil... try searching Google maps for 'Palestine', it's already gone! Pretty impressive indeed...
Ah great, I always wondered what the rule of thumb would roughly be... but is that 4 meters around? So a 20 meter asteroid would be 12 meter crashing down in flames, correct?
I always hear this argument, but it never stopped SSH or SFTP. You simply store the key as 'trusted' the first time and you have a fair protection against MITM attacks from then on. And considering the fact that the unencrypted variants (telnet, FTP, and HTTP just the same) are all vulnerable to MITM attacks as well as password interception etc. it's no valid reason not to use encryption with SSC. It's several factors more secure.
Problems holding this back now:
- Onion routing: has too little exit nodes and too many hops severely reducing the available bandwidth. The throughput and latency are too high to replace the internet for anything but basic sites and communication.
- Pervasive email encryption: requires cooperation from a lot of parties, who have their own interest in reading your mail (Google with advertising for example). It will only work when you can reliably send encrypted mail to anyone and know for sure they will be able to read it.
- More widespread use of SSL: requires self-signed certificates to be accepted by mayor browsers as an intermediate security between insecure HTTP and validated HTTPS. Currently they are all unwilling to recognize SSC HTTPS as 'somewhat more secure than HTTP'.
- VPN darknet: requires relatively expensive centralized infrastructure to be of any useful size, although you could create an internet of smaller darknets by some means of VPN peering. But you might run into bandwidth issues again...
I do not know any other factors that hold these technologies back from the top of my head now, but i'm fairly sure some other Slashdotters can amend (and no doubt correct) this list.
You make an excellent point. That is why it's generally considered unsafe just to look just at the taillights of the car in front of you. Instead you are supposed to carefully observe the entire road ahead of you and identify obstacles that the car in front of you might have missed. While this is not possible behind a large truck those generally don't drive all that fast.
But when you name this as the limiting factor of speed - which it is - you can infer that because both the brakes (with ABS etc.) and the crash safety of cars have been vastly improved, theoretically a faster speed should be possible without causing more deaths. And statistically the autobahn in Germany is safer than most highways.
On the German autobahn I feel safer driving 200 km/h than some places in The Netherlands driving 100 km/h, but this is especially because the Germans drive better and keep a proper distance (well, in general, not always). Driving faster does require you to use your mirrors more often, because an Audi in the distance can be right behind you in a matter of seconds, even if you yourself already drive 200.
Tailgating is always unsafe, but it depends on your definition of distance. Distance should be measured in seconds, not metres. And in that case: Yes, the same distance that is safe at 100 is safe at 400 km/h. The distance is sufficient for the human response time to start braking when the person in from of you brakes. When you travel at the same speed it does not matter if you drive 50, 100, 200 or 400 km/h.
Great plan! It would take care of the whole 'right to internet' idea, and make the US one of the first countries to effectively roll out some form of free internet to all citizens. Putting the country at the forefront of modern rights for its citizens. Any government 'for the people' would jump at this idea...
Yeah, I can see how the corporatocracy would think this is a bad idea. There is no profit in citizen rights...
And America hasn't? Check again.
I know you were only kidding, but history is read too selectively sometimes and a lot of people don't even know facts like this.
Humans have been shown to have reaction times easily capable of speeds 4 times faster, and probably much more given the right conditions. The reason for speed limits on highways is not the reaction time, but massive increase in damage and inherent lower survivability. Given that car-safety has improved a *lot* (not only in collision situations, but also braking and handling) you would expect the maximum speeds to increase somewhat. But the original reasoning seems forgotten...
Speed does not kill, momemtum kills. Other than that your post makes perfect sense, please carry on.
There is no "one-size-fits-all, completely permanent" solution to assholes.
Some extreme solutions prove the contrary. ;)
But yeah, I see your point. Different people, different solutions. But for a disorder to have truly different levels of effect you would expect there to be some kind of spectrum... In that case the asshole who doesn't realize he's a jerk could very well be a very mild case sociopath. It's about lack of empathy right? And there is of course a spectrum of empathy ranging from absolutely none (sociopath) to a huge fucking lot, with neither end allowing people to function properly.
Why is that always the only response you see when someone points out these kind of covert operations perpetrated by the USA they immediately associate the person with being a communist? You probably didn't get the memo that this centuries FUD is supposed to be about terrorists... The cold war is over, so take your communist-FUD and stick in you own red star.
No, that simply isn't possible. Everyone knows that USA and UK only invade to bring Democracy! They would never overthrow democratically elected governments to install dictator regimes only for US economic gains!
I can know it because I saw it on TV, they even super-duper-swore it to be true on Fox.
You make a good point, but the problem is some holes cannot be fixed (inherently)...
So that leaves conditioning as the only working treatment. But some things can't be punished by law currently (and neither should there be a law against anything and everthing).
But it's also possible to condition without punishment, but what kind of conditioning would work well on a sociopath?
If you're using internet explorer, you deserve every known bug that M$ neglects to patch for a long long time.
FTFY. All mayor browsers except Opera suffered from this attack vector, but all others patched it fairly fast. This isn't a problem with bugs, this is a problem with the patching of those bugs, and M$ shows how little they care for customers every day they leave exposing bugs like this and many others unpatched for *years*.
Excellent example. The question that now remains is: How do you deal with sociopaths? Is the only solution to force them to feel exactly like their victims? Your example seems to indicate there is no 'hey, maybe I did unto others...' moment for sociopaths, so will they ever truly learn from their mistakes? Hmmm, the cynic in me knows the answer is probably 'They will learn not to get caught next time'.
Yeah, it kinda works like that already. But for efficiency you pay *after* the fact, and *after* you get caught, giving you a chance to get away with it for free. But when you do get caught this monetary transaction is can be made during several stages of prosecution, in general being: police, DA, judge, super-lawyers. The amount you need to spend may increase over time and no guarantees can be made... But in general the system works like this and has worked like this for a long long time.
Nevada is just innovative because they give you the option to pay (a bribe) *before* a minor infringement.
Best... Car... Analogy... Ever!!!
Correcting yourself again Pojut?
Fixed.
;-p
Talking to yourself again Pojut?
Humans are an integral part of the ecosystem too.