The new Code of Conduct explicitly says discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex or gender is not allowed. One Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board member who did not sign off on the patch is Ted Tso, who is a rape apologist:
Unjustifiably long list of near misses, where lunching nukes was seriously considered, proves to me that current type of decision makers are not to be trusted with nukes.
Sure, some of these were technical in nature, but not all of them. For example, did you know that during Cuban missile crisis US command was advocating for preemptive nuclear strikes followed by follow-up military invasion of Cuba? They calculated that Soviets would at most destroy couple US cities (and historic record proves them correct) and US would be able to achieve decisive victory in the resulting hot nuclear war. How insane is that?
Based on historical record of close calls I concluded that over time failure is inevitable. Ideal situation that we should try to achieve and that I would define as 100% success is "We never lunched any nukes or ever came close to doing so". We are not there.
Your delusional world view does not survive even superficial examination. Idiotically droning about how gender is a social construct and how men and women are exactly the same in all regards may be popular with SJW crowd, but it is as anti-science as climate change denialism. Sorry to trigger you, but this is not how humanity works and your deranged behavior and screams of sexism won't change reality.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Women are more easily shamed into submission. Why do you think "slut shaming" works, while "cad shaming" doesn't? Testosterone makes men more likely to fight back and even kill in the face of abuse. It's pure biology.
I am amazed that such obvious statement has to be repeated here, on/. of all sites. I am saddened that a number of people here fail to get it.
Men and women have different temperaments. This has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by decades of psychology research. The untrue narrative that men and women are exactly the same and all the differences are purely due to external pressure by society is a recent fabrication of radical feminists used it to justify concepts of patriarchy and other warped views.
I assume you never worked with military command types. Military hierarchy selects for dominant, aggressive behavior.
I don't see a contradiction. You could argue that what we have now is good enough, as we avoided nuclear war so far. I am not disputing this, but I do propose that we could do better, considering that placing some of the most aggressive and dominant people in our society in charge of nuclear weapons is foolish. Even if it worked fine up to now.
Your comment about sexism is idiotic. Men and women are different in temperament, this isn't even remotely controversial to anyone right of SJW. 0.01% of most aggressive people are all men, this is how normal distributions work.
I disagree, I would rather have a woman-controlled nuclear button. Men are too hot-headed to be trusted with nukes, it is amazing we haven't blown ourselves up so far.
Current social norms assume that diversity is universally beneficial for any organization working on any project. While it is obviously true for any human-facing organization, it is less clear that infrastructure projects like Linux would benefit. While diversity can be beneficial, its not without its drawbacks and costs that should be considered. For example, uniformity makes it easier to standardize or build consensus. Diversity can lead to increase of in-group formation, politicing, and turf wars.
The question that should be objectively examined, but is likely impossible to do so in a current political climate, is whether increasing diversity of the Linux contributors would lead to a better Linux kernel. Empirically, merit-based approach worked well up to this point and it isn't clear that it should be replaced by diversity-based approach. It is conceivable that all-white, all-male, all-antisocial, all-hostile group of kernel developers would produce the best possible kernel.
I have a business idea - open a robotic "gym" next to a pub. After work you drop off your bracelet for a "workout" and go out with buddies to have a pint and shoot some pool.
While public has very little recourse against this, artists and labels do. TM is effectively selling tickets multiple times, getting their cut multiple times, but paying artists only for the original ticket sale.
When you say "meaningfully improve fuel economy in cities", what do you exactly mean? Is 0.01 Gal per full gas tank is meaningful? Also, how much gas do you think car consumes when idling? I think it is less than 0.1 gal per hour per L of engine of displacement. So 5.0 Mustang idling for 2 hours would use up 1 gal of fuel, or would be able to idle approximately for 1.3 days on a full tank.
Old cars can be cool and not expensive. If you drive a beater car and don't show pride of ownership, then yes, people react accordingly. If you drive an old car and it is clean, minimal rust, and is running well, then it is "old school cool".
For example old and inexpensive Civic Hatch, VW Golf, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Celcia, and so on would not be seen in a negative light. Your choices broaden a great deal if you step up to luxury bracket, as almost any $100K car would still be seen as cool 20 years older. For example, old diesel W123 Mercedes-Benz is both super practical (easily 40MPG) and super cool.
This. The most environmentally responsible approach is long-term car ownership. Longer you own the car, lower the annualized impact of manufacturing the car. If you own your big-block Chevy long enough you will have lower lifetime emissions that someone leasing Priuses.
If EPA was rational they would regulate car long term reliability - ensuring that the car could be used for at least 250,000 miles and 20 years without major rebuilds.
Sure, it will end up with cars producing less CO2.
Only on a test. About everything in modern cars is optimized to pass government emission and fuel economy tests. This doesn't translate to better cars is real driving situations.
For example, start and stop technology. It makes no difference in regular driving, but it improves EPA city driving fuel economy test performance. The difference? In EPA tests you are 100% stopped, in real life you often have to creep forward in traffic or even near stoplights.
What I think would depend on standard of rigor we apply. It is not beyond reasonable doubt that CoC is genuine. On the balance of probabilities? Well, that is harder to answer, as the body of work is there to weight against it.
However, I don't think our choices are reject CoC or adopt CoC as written in stone. Rejecting it will all but ensure GG-like scorched earth war. We also don't have to adopt it as it is immutable and surrender all control of it to SJW.
I think the right approach is to adopt it and fix it in a way that makes abusing it harder. This way we can claim that we faithfully implemented CoC while frustrating ulterior motives.
I am not aware of community or LT posting anything definitive on the clarity or lack of thereof of scope definition of the CoC. You are presuming to speak of behalf of Linux community when clearly you have no authority or standing to do so.
I think subvert the subversives is the right approach to this problem. CoC is innocent, and fighting it directly based on hypotheticals is a losing proposition that has optics of hysterical overreaction. We can't recreate GG's scorched earth approach in this situation, OSS and Linux too valuable to risk as collateral. Instead, we need to adopt and fix CoC so it is much harder to use for any other but stated purpose. We fork CoC and make sure it is effective at stopping clearly defined harassment and ineffective at pushing political agendas. SJWs won't be able to object to this process without admitting to their intentions.
Here is what needs to happen: 1. Scope has to be clearly defined to exclude any non-Linux activities. What people do behind closed doors is none of our business. 2. Harassment should be clearly defined so it isn't possible to stretch definitions. 3. There should be an official appeal process and mandatory community review for any disciplinary action as a result of CoC. It will be much harder to corrupt this process if everything has to be done in the open.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I screwed up!
Not as badly as Mitsubishi did...
Both had malfunctioning brakes.
I confirm that even Enterprise Win 10 does this by default and you have to create policy to stop this from happening.
So you see nothing wrong with a uncertain scenario where a number of major US cities lost to nuclear strikes as a result of a counter-attack?
You definitely should not be trusted with a nuclear button.
Begun the SJW war has.
Well, that didn't take long...
The new Code of Conduct explicitly says discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex or gender is not allowed. One Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board member who did not sign off on the patch is Ted Tso, who is a rape apologist:
I did not expect them to start with nukes.
Unjustifiably long list of near misses, where lunching nukes was seriously considered, proves to me that current type of decision makers are not to be trusted with nukes.
Sure, some of these were technical in nature, but not all of them. For example, did you know that during Cuban missile crisis US command was advocating for preemptive nuclear strikes followed by follow-up military invasion of Cuba? They calculated that Soviets would at most destroy couple US cities (and historic record proves them correct) and US would be able to achieve decisive victory in the resulting hot nuclear war. How insane is that?
Based on historical record of close calls I concluded that over time failure is inevitable. Ideal situation that we should try to achieve and that I would define as 100% success is "We never lunched any nukes or ever came close to doing so". We are not there.
You said men keep launching nukes all time because they are hot headed and then provide NO EXAMPLES.
I said no such thing. Provide a direct quote if you disagree.
Your delusional world view does not survive even superficial examination. Idiotically droning about how gender is a social construct and how men and women are exactly the same in all regards may be popular with SJW crowd, but it is as anti-science as climate change denialism. Sorry to trigger you, but this is not how humanity works and your deranged behavior and screams of sexism won't change reality.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Women are more easily shamed into submission. Why do you think "slut shaming" works, while "cad shaming" doesn't? Testosterone makes men more likely to fight back and even kill in the face of abuse. It's pure biology.
I am amazed that such obvious statement has to be repeated here, on /. of all sites. I am saddened that a number of people here fail to get it.
Men and women have different temperaments. This has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by decades of psychology research. The untrue narrative that men and women are exactly the same and all the differences are purely due to external pressure by society is a recent fabrication of radical feminists used it to justify concepts of patriarchy and other warped views.
Let me Google it for you.
I assume you never worked with military command types. Military hierarchy selects for dominant, aggressive behavior.
I don't see a contradiction. You could argue that what we have now is good enough, as we avoided nuclear war so far. I am not disputing this, but I do propose that we could do better, considering that placing some of the most aggressive and dominant people in our society in charge of nuclear weapons is foolish. Even if it worked fine up to now.
Your comment about sexism is idiotic. Men and women are different in temperament, this isn't even remotely controversial to anyone right of SJW. 0.01% of most aggressive people are all men, this is how normal distributions work.
I disagree, I would rather have a woman-controlled nuclear button. Men are too hot-headed to be trusted with nukes, it is amazing we haven't blown ourselves up so far.
Current social norms assume that diversity is universally beneficial for any organization working on any project. While it is obviously true for any human-facing organization, it is less clear that infrastructure projects like Linux would benefit. While diversity can be beneficial, its not without its drawbacks and costs that should be considered. For example, uniformity makes it easier to standardize or build consensus. Diversity can lead to increase of in-group formation, politicing, and turf wars.
The question that should be objectively examined, but is likely impossible to do so in a current political climate, is whether increasing diversity of the Linux contributors would lead to a better Linux kernel. Empirically, merit-based approach worked well up to this point and it isn't clear that it should be replaced by diversity-based approach. It is conceivable that all-white, all-male, all-antisocial, all-hostile group of kernel developers would produce the best possible kernel.
I have a business idea - open a robotic "gym" next to a pub. After work you drop off your bracelet for a "workout" and go out with buddies to have a pint and shoot some pool.
PKI isn't quick, especially and particularly due to OCSP/CRL lookups. Is this going to spike my ping times as a result? If yes, I am not interested.
While public has very little recourse against this, artists and labels do. TM is effectively selling tickets multiple times, getting their cut multiple times, but paying artists only for the original ticket sale.
When you say "meaningfully improve fuel economy in cities", what do you exactly mean? Is 0.01 Gal per full gas tank is meaningful? Also, how much gas do you think car consumes when idling? I think it is less than 0.1 gal per hour per L of engine of displacement. So 5.0 Mustang idling for 2 hours would use up 1 gal of fuel, or would be able to idle approximately for 1.3 days on a full tank.
Old cars can be cool and not expensive. If you drive a beater car and don't show pride of ownership, then yes, people react accordingly. If you drive an old car and it is clean, minimal rust, and is running well, then it is "old school cool".
For example old and inexpensive Civic Hatch, VW Golf, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Celcia, and so on would not be seen in a negative light. Your choices broaden a great deal if you step up to luxury bracket, as almost any $100K car would still be seen as cool 20 years older. For example, old diesel W123 Mercedes-Benz is both super practical (easily 40MPG) and super cool.
Yes, but start and stop system will restart the engine as a result, reducing effectiveness of the system.
This. The most environmentally responsible approach is long-term car ownership. Longer you own the car, lower the annualized impact of manufacturing the car. If you own your big-block Chevy long enough you will have lower lifetime emissions that someone leasing Priuses.
If EPA was rational they would regulate car long term reliability - ensuring that the car could be used for at least 250,000 miles and 20 years without major rebuilds.
Sure, it will end up with cars producing less CO2.
Only on a test. About everything in modern cars is optimized to pass government emission and fuel economy tests. This doesn't translate to better cars is real driving situations.
For example, start and stop technology. It makes no difference in regular driving, but it improves EPA city driving fuel economy test performance. The difference? In EPA tests you are 100% stopped, in real life you often have to creep forward in traffic or even near stoplights.
This is exactly why I am advocating to address this ambiguity. Urgently.
What I think would depend on standard of rigor we apply. It is not beyond reasonable doubt that CoC is genuine. On the balance of probabilities? Well, that is harder to answer, as the body of work is there to weight against it.
However, I don't think our choices are reject CoC or adopt CoC as written in stone. Rejecting it will all but ensure GG-like scorched earth war. We also don't have to adopt it as it is immutable and surrender all control of it to SJW.
I think the right approach is to adopt it and fix it in a way that makes abusing it harder. This way we can claim that we faithfully implemented CoC while frustrating ulterior motives.
I am not aware of community or LT posting anything definitive on the clarity or lack of thereof of scope definition of the CoC. You are presuming to speak of behalf of Linux community when clearly you have no authority or standing to do so.
I think subvert the subversives is the right approach to this problem. CoC is innocent, and fighting it directly based on hypotheticals is a losing proposition that has optics of hysterical overreaction. We can't recreate GG's scorched earth approach in this situation, OSS and Linux too valuable to risk as collateral. Instead, we need to adopt and fix CoC so it is much harder to use for any other but stated purpose. We fork CoC and make sure it is effective at stopping clearly defined harassment and ineffective at pushing political agendas. SJWs won't be able to object to this process without admitting to their intentions.
Here is what needs to happen:
1. Scope has to be clearly defined to exclude any non-Linux activities. What people do behind closed doors is none of our business.
2. Harassment should be clearly defined so it isn't possible to stretch definitions.
3. There should be an official appeal process and mandatory community review for any disciplinary action as a result of CoC. It will be much harder to corrupt this process if everything has to be done in the open.