"A rather contrived scenario. I too know without a doubt which victim I'd rather be. And that's alive, thank you very much, don't pick for me."
So no one old has ever been murdered shortly before they'd have died anyway? No one has ever been a victim of abuse? It's called an example, the example bit of the sentence in question would be a giveaway to most people, it highlights the fallacy of the argument that it'd always be better to be raped than murdered. It's quite normal for a proof by counter-example to provide an obvious counter-example, that's kind of the fucking point. Your complete lack of understanding of the trauma of something like rape highlights how utterly out of touch you are with modern understanding of mental health issues. Again, if you're so tortured by such an event that you kill yourself, then for many such victims it's not a choice between being killed, and being alive, it's a choice between being killed, and being so mentally tortured by the event that you end up killing yourself anyway. If you really think that being killed is better than being tortured before dying anyway then you really have lost all touch with reality.
"No it's utterly right. In fact, attitudes like these causes trauma in rape victims. Believing themselves to be damaged goods and worthless."
This statement alone says that you're so far out of your depth here that you shouldn't even be bothering to try and play armchair internet devils advocate on this subject. If you think all there is to deal with rape trauma is to pretend that everything's fine then you really do have absolutely no clue.
Feelings of worthlessness are simply related to depression and something that affects people who are both victims of rape, and non victims alike. Dealing with that has really no impact on dealing with the memories of being assaulted and the inherent fears of various things ranging widely from loneliness, to other people depending on the victim and the crime in question. Those problems are going to persist - you can't just make them go away with kind words, you can't simply pretend that everyone will be able to live a normal life after such an event - that just builds a society where we don't talk about it and blame the victim if they're acting a bit weird for a day. If they're feeling down one day it's obviously their own fault because I mean, they're just living a normal life now like everyone else right? Obviously it can't possibly be to do with what happened to them, I mean, they're over that we told them it'll all be fine and they'll live normally like everyone else!
As a society we're past this, you're living in the past, with a now thankfully terribly outdated view of what impact rape has on victims, and how we should deal with it. Your trivialisation of the impacts on victims belong in the past, please leave them there.
For what it's worth, some of us both think the US (and my government at the time, the UK) were completely wrong and that soldiers don't deserve the saint hood they're granted.
My grandfather and his generation deserved the privileged view veterans of his generation were given because he was forced into a war fighting for his life and the very survival of his country as a Royal Marine Commando fighting against Nazi Germany, but the guys who sign up today? No, they're almost all doing it because they're fuck ups and failed at school, and it's the easy way out of bucking up, growing up and doing something useful like everyone else.
I'd have respect for soldiers fighting in a war of survival, or conscripts who were forced into a war against their will, but volunteers for the military of a nation not under direct threat? Nope. I don't respect them anymore than I respect people going into any other profession.
I understand in America brainwashing is more prevalent and some people genuinely do believe that patriotic duty bullshit, but certainly here it's nonsense, no one believes that, they always claim it to demand they be afforded otherwise undeserved respect, but they don't believe it. They do it because they left themselves no other career path through their own stupidity, or because they just want to dick around with tanks, guns, and planes. That's fine to be like that, or to want that, but don't pretend it's something you deserve respect for. Military populism as peddled by the likes of The Sun and Murdoch and co's other offerings are populist poison in society creating saints of people who are otherwise failures by their own hand.
Out of interest though, how do you determine that the Iraq war was worth it? I personally can't see how anything positive came out of it, the region lost an important counter balance to Iran, and Iran gained an ally. More people died, the country is less stable, and it cost the US economy trillions of dollars of debt. What possible benefits arose from it? I just can't see a metric that made it worthwhile. At least with Afghanistan I can see there is some argument for increased stabilisation, and less brutal militancy, at least with Afghanistan I can respect that there is certainly some progress.
For what it's worth I do agree it's actually a really shitty reward:)
In the UK you can renew for as little as about £29 quite often. I'd think of that as a kick in the teeth if I was given it as a reward, even with the games as well.
Marketshare IS the measurable market, it's the amount of devices being sold.
What you're calling the real market is an utterly arbitrary set of definitions used to define "real".
You must be an Apple fanboy, because only a fanboy could make such an obscure mental leap in trying to redefine reality to suit their predetermined bias.
Or maybe it's simply due to the fact that men are, by nature, chemically different than women and more prone to getting involved in aggressive situations and less likely to accept a submissive role in accepting support from others?
Pretending men end up in these situations because of some bias in society is nonsense when there are well known natural factors that make men different to women in this exact respect.
"Rape is a horrible, horrible crime. But for all of that, the victim, can live a full and normal life after the fact."
No, no they can't. Some women recover okay, but others find themselves with a lifelong trauma that leaves them unable to form healthy relationships, leaves them scared to leave their homes, and then others just outright commit suicide. Pretending it's something that just happens and then that's it, it's over and you carry on as normal is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever seen modded up on Slashdot. I'm not sure if you just have no understanding of rape whatsoever and are completely out of depth on this topic, or if you just phrased your post incredibly poorly and unintentionally trivialised it as a result, but either way you really couldn't be more wrong in the way it's written. The very fact a non-negligible number of victims commit suicide implies that for some of them they'd actually rather be dead than have to deal with the aftermath of being raped.
I understand that by definition murder means no ifs, no buts, there's no life afterwards, but for some victims the experience and aftermath of being raped was literally worse than death for them so you cannot just simplistically say that it's not worse than murder. That depends entirely on the victim, and what happened to them - it's so dependent on the case in question. For example, I'd have a hard time buying the idea that the murder of a 70 year old man who lived a full life and who had terminal cancer and only 6 months to live is somehow worse for the victim than a woman that's had to live her life with non-stop memories, clinical depression, and constant reminders of being repeatedly raped by a family member when she was a kid. I know without a doubt which victim I'd rather be.
In contrast, a girl who slept with a guy and then changed her mind afterwards and then decided to cry rape, and lived in a country where that is legally acceptable to do so (Hi Sweden), probably wont have the slightest bit of trauma to suffer at all other than maybe a bit of regret about sleeping with "that guy". But these sorts of nuances just aren't born out in the statistics, so you just cannot simply say "Well, rape is not as bad as murder because you can just live a normal life afterwards" - no, just no. Stamp that idea out right the fuck now, it's so utterly wrong.
No he couldn't, you first have to register an account on the system, and to do that you have to go via a sign up process where this bug isn't present.
This simply applies to the console based Xbox One sign in process on accounts already registered and nothing else. Effectively it only ever lets you sign in as someone who is already registered on your console which will normally just be your family members anyway.
I especially liked the bit about Python, because I mean why would you want an extremely fast JIT compiled language with the best in class IDE that is Visual Studio when you can have Python's relative sluggishness and notepad? (yes I'm being facetious before someone tells me you don't have to use notepad for Python).
Seriously, people need to stop thinking Python is the solution to everything ever. Python is great, and is perfect for replacing crap like PHP because Python is so much better, but F# does many things much better than Python and has it's own niche areas where it simply just outclasses Python.
I wouldn't ever even compare Python and F# because their use cases are just too different.
Yep, it's an abuse of statistics. The fact is that the Android market is so much drastically larger than that of the iOS market (nearly at 80% marketshare now with Apple down below 15% IIRC?) that you can still have drastically more more wealthy Android users than iOS users and there still be room for a bunch of less wealthy users to drag the average down.
An equally nonsensical stat that could tell the opposite story is to sum up the wealth of all smartphone users using each device type - do this and I assure you Android users will hold drastically more wealth than iOS users overall but it's equally nonsense to then declare iOS users a poor segment of society as a result.
This is manipulation of stats to make a story, rather than news of any actual merit or worth.
"People do NOT know what their PCs are up to. Debuggers? Right, maybe a few people on slashdot."
Right, and most people don't understand pretty much every scientific paper that gets published, but it doesn't matter, because as long as there is a decent size enough pool of people who do then there are people who can verify the reliability of said papers.
The same is true with the PC, there are plenty enough people who build their own systems, who peek and poke around with what their system is doing for the security of most hardware and software to be verifiable. The same isn't true of smartphones where it's hard enough to get full control of the software without problems, let alone build something based on custom hardware. The pool of people who can verify security by comparing and contrasting results produced by different hardware is pretty much restricted to those in the very companies we'd normally be verifying against.
So unless your argument is that we shouldn't trust any science that everyone can understand the peer reviewed paper about, meaning we should basically never ever trust science then I don't know what your point is. You don't need everyone to be able to verify something is safe and secure for it to be safe and secure, but you do need at least some reasonably sized pool of people.
Yes, how the fuck did that even get modded up? The evidence was even in the post he was responding to.
I'm not American and even I'm well aware of these two's massive hate for homosexuals.
Hell, with Ron Paul it was kind of even a big deal with that he preaches no government interference live and let live claims on one hand then demands that government interferes to restrict gay rights on the other.
How does someone not make that connection unless they're wilfully being ignorant because they themselves support their homophobic viewpoints?
"They could at least give the kid a permanent XBox Live subscription. He would have effectively had one if he hadn't disclosed the bug."
No, this isn't what he found out. All that happened was his Dad had password sign in enabled on Xbox Live and he found out how to bypass that. His Dad still has to subscribe to and pay for XBox Live, the only access he'll have had is what his Dad already had and was paying for. If his Dad wasn't subscribed to XBL he'd still not have been able to access it.
Well that normally seems to be how it works now, see the Sumly acquisition for example- teen genius gets startup bought by Yahoo! for $30mill!
Real story: Dad is an investment banker, gets people with good advertising platforms he has worked with before such as Steven Fry, Ashton Kutcher, Rupert Murdoch to invest in a new firm, Dad hires a bunch of silicon valley veterans to produce the actual application and outsources the complex AI part to another firm who specialise in that. His wife, a lawyer for Yahoo sets up a purchase of the company by Yahoo with her contacts in house, but they need to make this look good, they need something to make the whole story stand out like some magical dot-com success, they need... a child genius for the media! Who better than the guy's son?
It seems using your kids to play the child genius card is all the rage nowadays, so you're probably right. You can also file this alongside the 5 year old that wrote a billion selling iPhone app or whatever and whose dad just conveniently happened to be an iPhone app developer - funny that.
Maybe it's time my dog makes himself useful, maybe it's time my dog creates the next billion dollar startup. Hmm...
"This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views. I don't care what you do but trying to use your social clout to strong arm a group is something we've seen in the past."
So you're saying you actually support censorship then? I mean you're saying these people can't express their views, even though you believe Eich can express his? What's your implication here, that if a viewpoint is held by a "large group of people" that it's not a viewpoint that's allowed to be expressed? Those people have every right to express those views, it's entirely up to Mozilla as a company to decide if it wants to listen to those people and act on their views. It chose to do so, it could've chose not to do so, but it would then have to accept the consequences of defending it's own beliefs. That's how the world works.
"It's a dangerous road to go down and I know you'd agree if it was some powerful homophobic group putting pressure on a company for having a homosexual employee."
Or like, if some powerful group decided to try and pass a state law denying equal rights to homosexual couples for example?
Your definition of free speech seems extremely arbitrary and seems to define it as something Eich can have, but no one else can. If your goal is to simply support Eich then why not make use of your right to free speech and simply say what you believe, that you support Eich and his views on prop 8?
Otherwise you're not really making any sense at all beyond arguing that freedom of speech applies only to an arbitrary viewpoint you've decided it applies to, and to no one else.
Life is full of consequences, you don't get to be an asshole and not have it come back to bite you. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your actions.
"Nothing on the PC will allow you to control access to any bit of hardware or other software on the computer"
Sorry but that's nonsense. On the PC it's trivial for me to see what any application is doing with a debugger. I can intercept all outbound traffic and many such things to know what an application is doing. This is much harder on Android, especially if you have a phone you can't root, or at least wont root because it'll void your warranty or ability to get updates.
It's the openness and ease of seeing what an application is doing on a PC relative to smartphones that is precisely what allows us much more knowledge of what our PCs are doing.
"There's no system on a Windows machine that will allow one program access to one file then forbid it from another."
That's not true either, you can trivially keep content in a file with permissions restricted to certain users such as a different user account than that is currently logged in preventing an application accessing it without an access control prompt. You can restrict permissions on individual files to certain roles also which can also act to block access to an application. Android has multiple users but it's implementation is bad and there's no way to use the system (let alone provision for roles) to control access.
The only thing you win at is being repeatedly retarded, so congratulations on that if it makes you feel better.
Hint: If someone's repeatedly insulting you, perhaps it's because you're idiotic and ignorant enough to deserve it. Being insulted doesn't make you right, it just means you're so far off base that someone has lost patience trying to even deal with your level of retardedness in a less offensive manner.
But it's okay, your posting history alone demonstrates you hate gay people and that's the only reason you're either ignorant, or at least feigning ignorance of biology. I get it I do, your daddy made you believe in fairy tales about a big man in the sky and that conflicts with your repressed homosexual feelings so you have to lash out as it's the only coping mechanism you know, and that's fine. But it's also why you'll get people bitch at you - it'd be far easier for you and everyone else if you just accepted what you are, gave up on believing in fairy tales from the bible or whatever and just came out.
It's bias to even allow such a case to happen in the backyard of an employer as large as Apple such that it's basically impossible to find a jury that doesn't have a direct, or indirect (i.e. family member employed by) connection to it in one way or another but apparently the US court system allows that too.
It's not a uniquely US problem though, remember The Pirate Bay vs. the music industry trial in Sweden? The judge there was a paid up member of a music industry lobby group. There was even an appeal on this basis but it was thrown out.
There's a reason stuff like this happens, there's a reason Obama carries out the first veto in decades to overrule the import ban on Apple products for patent infringement claiming protection of the smartphone market but doesn't do the same for Samsung when the situation is reversed. It's all part of how countries like the US maintain their position in the world over nations they see as threats (i.e. China) - by rigging the system in their favour whilst trying to retain an air of legitimacy by playing the game as they go.
You shouldn't really be too surprised that the same person that carries out such an out of the ordinary, blatantly unfair ITC trade ban veto in defence of Apple is also the same person that put Koh in office in the first place. That person being Obama.
It's a charade, it's always a charade. Knowing the right people doesn't just net you influence in politics, the world of finance and so forth. It awards you access even to favourable judicial action.
Yes, that's normally how it works. You can work either directly, or indirectly for someone. Your CV normally states who you directly worked for though - your direct employer, but there's nothing to list your indirect clients under those employment entries on your CV in the blurb, that's what most normal people do.
Perhaps your amazement over this revelation is because you're confusing "working for" for "employee of". The latter is something quite different, and not something I said. The latter is what you list on your CV under "Employment", the former is what you enter in the description for those clients you indirectly worked for under those entries if you wish to name them because you think they sound good.
You know it's far easier to just admit you're wrong rather than to try and play games with semantics right? Carrying on just makes you look even more stupid than when you failed to grasp even basic biology.
Really, you should probably just stop making yourself look ever more dumb about now.
Have you considered going to a different site? this site is for science and tech news, as you don't grasp basic science it's probably not really for you.
No, if your fathers genes were expressed exactly in you you would be a clone of your father. That's not how reproduction works, you have a chance of inheriting different traits from your father, your mother, and their ancestors before them. That means yes, you have a chance of inheriting your father's sexuality, but you also have a chance of not doing so, you could inherit your mothers sexuality, either of your grandparents, or even your great grandparents.
This is fairly basic biology, I'm amazed on a site like this there are people struggling with it.
From 2002 - 2008 that private practice was McDermott Will & Emery, for whom Apple was one of their clients who she worked for.
If you're going to scream shill you may want to check you're not wrong first. Unfortunately you are, so it's not surprising you opted to post anonymously to avoid such embarrassment that stems from failing to check facts.
You're still really confused about this, aren't you?
I'll try one last time.
Gay isn't a thing you do, it's a thing you are.
"To put it another way, what's the difference between a non-gay person and a gay person who doesn't exhibit homosexual behaviour? There's no difference."
Well one is not gay, and the other is gay. That's the difference. Even if the gay one doesn't actively carry out homosexual acts, they're still attracted to people of the same sex, just as the non-gay person is attracted to people of the opposite sex. Even if they don't carry out the act, they're are still what they are, there's no changing that.
It's not the point of diagnosis of a genetic trait that defines your genetics. If someone is born with a pre-disposition to violence they have a pre-disposition to violence at birth, the fact that trait is not exhibited until later in life does not change the fact they have that trait.
Being a violent person and having a pre-disposition to violence are two different things, just as being born homosexual is different to performing homosexual acts, it's possible to be gay without ever even engaging in a homosexual act even. By confusing the two you're implying with your argument that if you restrain someone for life who has a pre-disposition for violence so that they can't actually be violent that you're preventing them from having a pre-disposition to violence and hence altering their genetics. That is obviously complete and utter nonsense, just like your argument and understanding of this topic.
Slashdot Mirror
"A rather contrived scenario. I too know without a doubt which victim I'd rather be. And that's alive, thank you very much, don't pick for me."
So no one old has ever been murdered shortly before they'd have died anyway? No one has ever been a victim of abuse? It's called an example, the example bit of the sentence in question would be a giveaway to most people, it highlights the fallacy of the argument that it'd always be better to be raped than murdered. It's quite normal for a proof by counter-example to provide an obvious counter-example, that's kind of the fucking point. Your complete lack of understanding of the trauma of something like rape highlights how utterly out of touch you are with modern understanding of mental health issues. Again, if you're so tortured by such an event that you kill yourself, then for many such victims it's not a choice between being killed, and being alive, it's a choice between being killed, and being so mentally tortured by the event that you end up killing yourself anyway. If you really think that being killed is better than being tortured before dying anyway then you really have lost all touch with reality.
"No it's utterly right. In fact, attitudes like these causes trauma in rape victims. Believing themselves to be damaged goods and worthless."
This statement alone says that you're so far out of your depth here that you shouldn't even be bothering to try and play armchair internet devils advocate on this subject. If you think all there is to deal with rape trauma is to pretend that everything's fine then you really do have absolutely no clue.
Feelings of worthlessness are simply related to depression and something that affects people who are both victims of rape, and non victims alike. Dealing with that has really no impact on dealing with the memories of being assaulted and the inherent fears of various things ranging widely from loneliness, to other people depending on the victim and the crime in question. Those problems are going to persist - you can't just make them go away with kind words, you can't simply pretend that everyone will be able to live a normal life after such an event - that just builds a society where we don't talk about it and blame the victim if they're acting a bit weird for a day. If they're feeling down one day it's obviously their own fault because I mean, they're just living a normal life now like everyone else right? Obviously it can't possibly be to do with what happened to them, I mean, they're over that we told them it'll all be fine and they'll live normally like everyone else!
As a society we're past this, you're living in the past, with a now thankfully terribly outdated view of what impact rape has on victims, and how we should deal with it. Your trivialisation of the impacts on victims belong in the past, please leave them there.
For what it's worth, some of us both think the US (and my government at the time, the UK) were completely wrong and that soldiers don't deserve the saint hood they're granted.
My grandfather and his generation deserved the privileged view veterans of his generation were given because he was forced into a war fighting for his life and the very survival of his country as a Royal Marine Commando fighting against Nazi Germany, but the guys who sign up today? No, they're almost all doing it because they're fuck ups and failed at school, and it's the easy way out of bucking up, growing up and doing something useful like everyone else.
I'd have respect for soldiers fighting in a war of survival, or conscripts who were forced into a war against their will, but volunteers for the military of a nation not under direct threat? Nope. I don't respect them anymore than I respect people going into any other profession.
I understand in America brainwashing is more prevalent and some people genuinely do believe that patriotic duty bullshit, but certainly here it's nonsense, no one believes that, they always claim it to demand they be afforded otherwise undeserved respect, but they don't believe it. They do it because they left themselves no other career path through their own stupidity, or because they just want to dick around with tanks, guns, and planes. That's fine to be like that, or to want that, but don't pretend it's something you deserve respect for. Military populism as peddled by the likes of The Sun and Murdoch and co's other offerings are populist poison in society creating saints of people who are otherwise failures by their own hand.
Out of interest though, how do you determine that the Iraq war was worth it? I personally can't see how anything positive came out of it, the region lost an important counter balance to Iran, and Iran gained an ally. More people died, the country is less stable, and it cost the US economy trillions of dollars of debt. What possible benefits arose from it? I just can't see a metric that made it worthwhile. At least with Afghanistan I can see there is some argument for increased stabilisation, and less brutal militancy, at least with Afghanistan I can respect that there is certainly some progress.
For what it's worth I do agree it's actually a really shitty reward :)
In the UK you can renew for as little as about £29 quite often. I'd think of that as a kick in the teeth if I was given it as a reward, even with the games as well.
"You do realise that many devices are available which provide root out of the box?"
It doesn't matter, most phones people are using don't, whilst all PCs follow a standard open architecture.
Marketshare IS the measurable market, it's the amount of devices being sold.
What you're calling the real market is an utterly arbitrary set of definitions used to define "real".
You must be an Apple fanboy, because only a fanboy could make such an obscure mental leap in trying to redefine reality to suit their predetermined bias.
Or maybe it's simply due to the fact that men are, by nature, chemically different than women and more prone to getting involved in aggressive situations and less likely to accept a submissive role in accepting support from others?
Pretending men end up in these situations because of some bias in society is nonsense when there are well known natural factors that make men different to women in this exact respect.
"Rape is a horrible, horrible crime. But for all of that, the victim, can live a full and normal life after the fact."
No, no they can't. Some women recover okay, but others find themselves with a lifelong trauma that leaves them unable to form healthy relationships, leaves them scared to leave their homes, and then others just outright commit suicide. Pretending it's something that just happens and then that's it, it's over and you carry on as normal is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever seen modded up on Slashdot. I'm not sure if you just have no understanding of rape whatsoever and are completely out of depth on this topic, or if you just phrased your post incredibly poorly and unintentionally trivialised it as a result, but either way you really couldn't be more wrong in the way it's written. The very fact a non-negligible number of victims commit suicide implies that for some of them they'd actually rather be dead than have to deal with the aftermath of being raped.
I understand that by definition murder means no ifs, no buts, there's no life afterwards, but for some victims the experience and aftermath of being raped was literally worse than death for them so you cannot just simplistically say that it's not worse than murder. That depends entirely on the victim, and what happened to them - it's so dependent on the case in question. For example, I'd have a hard time buying the idea that the murder of a 70 year old man who lived a full life and who had terminal cancer and only 6 months to live is somehow worse for the victim than a woman that's had to live her life with non-stop memories, clinical depression, and constant reminders of being repeatedly raped by a family member when she was a kid. I know without a doubt which victim I'd rather be.
In contrast, a girl who slept with a guy and then changed her mind afterwards and then decided to cry rape, and lived in a country where that is legally acceptable to do so (Hi Sweden), probably wont have the slightest bit of trauma to suffer at all other than maybe a bit of regret about sleeping with "that guy". But these sorts of nuances just aren't born out in the statistics, so you just cannot simply say "Well, rape is not as bad as murder because you can just live a normal life afterwards" - no, just no. Stamp that idea out right the fuck now, it's so utterly wrong.
No he couldn't, you first have to register an account on the system, and to do that you have to go via a sign up process where this bug isn't present.
This simply applies to the console based Xbox One sign in process on accounts already registered and nothing else. Effectively it only ever lets you sign in as someone who is already registered on your console which will normally just be your family members anyway.
I especially liked the bit about Python, because I mean why would you want an extremely fast JIT compiled language with the best in class IDE that is Visual Studio when you can have Python's relative sluggishness and notepad? (yes I'm being facetious before someone tells me you don't have to use notepad for Python).
Seriously, people need to stop thinking Python is the solution to everything ever. Python is great, and is perfect for replacing crap like PHP because Python is so much better, but F# does many things much better than Python and has it's own niche areas where it simply just outclasses Python.
I wouldn't ever even compare Python and F# because their use cases are just too different.
Yep, it's an abuse of statistics. The fact is that the Android market is so much drastically larger than that of the iOS market (nearly at 80% marketshare now with Apple down below 15% IIRC?) that you can still have drastically more more wealthy Android users than iOS users and there still be room for a bunch of less wealthy users to drag the average down.
An equally nonsensical stat that could tell the opposite story is to sum up the wealth of all smartphone users using each device type - do this and I assure you Android users will hold drastically more wealth than iOS users overall but it's equally nonsense to then declare iOS users a poor segment of society as a result.
This is manipulation of stats to make a story, rather than news of any actual merit or worth.
"People do NOT know what their PCs are up to. Debuggers? Right, maybe a few people on slashdot."
Right, and most people don't understand pretty much every scientific paper that gets published, but it doesn't matter, because as long as there is a decent size enough pool of people who do then there are people who can verify the reliability of said papers.
The same is true with the PC, there are plenty enough people who build their own systems, who peek and poke around with what their system is doing for the security of most hardware and software to be verifiable. The same isn't true of smartphones where it's hard enough to get full control of the software without problems, let alone build something based on custom hardware. The pool of people who can verify security by comparing and contrasting results produced by different hardware is pretty much restricted to those in the very companies we'd normally be verifying against.
So unless your argument is that we shouldn't trust any science that everyone can understand the peer reviewed paper about, meaning we should basically never ever trust science then I don't know what your point is. You don't need everyone to be able to verify something is safe and secure for it to be safe and secure, but you do need at least some reasonably sized pool of people.
Yes, how the fuck did that even get modded up? The evidence was even in the post he was responding to.
I'm not American and even I'm well aware of these two's massive hate for homosexuals.
Hell, with Ron Paul it was kind of even a big deal with that he preaches no government interference live and let live claims on one hand then demands that government interferes to restrict gay rights on the other.
How does someone not make that connection unless they're wilfully being ignorant because they themselves support their homophobic viewpoints?
"They could at least give the kid a permanent XBox Live subscription. He would have effectively had one if he hadn't disclosed the bug."
No, this isn't what he found out. All that happened was his Dad had password sign in enabled on Xbox Live and he found out how to bypass that. His Dad still has to subscribe to and pay for XBox Live, the only access he'll have had is what his Dad already had and was paying for. If his Dad wasn't subscribed to XBL he'd still not have been able to access it.
Well that normally seems to be how it works now, see the Sumly acquisition for example- teen genius gets startup bought by Yahoo! for $30mill!
Real story: Dad is an investment banker, gets people with good advertising platforms he has worked with before such as Steven Fry, Ashton Kutcher, Rupert Murdoch to invest in a new firm, Dad hires a bunch of silicon valley veterans to produce the actual application and outsources the complex AI part to another firm who specialise in that. His wife, a lawyer for Yahoo sets up a purchase of the company by Yahoo with her contacts in house, but they need to make this look good, they need something to make the whole story stand out like some magical dot-com success, they need... a child genius for the media! Who better than the guy's son?
It seems using your kids to play the child genius card is all the rage nowadays, so you're probably right. You can also file this alongside the 5 year old that wrote a billion selling iPhone app or whatever and whose dad just conveniently happened to be an iPhone app developer - funny that.
Maybe it's time my dog makes himself useful, maybe it's time my dog creates the next billion dollar startup. Hmm...
"This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views. I don't care what you do but trying to use your social clout to strong arm a group is something we've seen in the past."
So you're saying you actually support censorship then? I mean you're saying these people can't express their views, even though you believe Eich can express his? What's your implication here, that if a viewpoint is held by a "large group of people" that it's not a viewpoint that's allowed to be expressed? Those people have every right to express those views, it's entirely up to Mozilla as a company to decide if it wants to listen to those people and act on their views. It chose to do so, it could've chose not to do so, but it would then have to accept the consequences of defending it's own beliefs. That's how the world works.
"It's a dangerous road to go down and I know you'd agree if it was some powerful homophobic group putting pressure on a company for having a homosexual employee."
Or like, if some powerful group decided to try and pass a state law denying equal rights to homosexual couples for example?
Your definition of free speech seems extremely arbitrary and seems to define it as something Eich can have, but no one else can. If your goal is to simply support Eich then why not make use of your right to free speech and simply say what you believe, that you support Eich and his views on prop 8?
Otherwise you're not really making any sense at all beyond arguing that freedom of speech applies only to an arbitrary viewpoint you've decided it applies to, and to no one else.
Life is full of consequences, you don't get to be an asshole and not have it come back to bite you. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your actions.
"Nothing on the PC will allow you to control access to any bit of hardware or other software on the computer"
Sorry but that's nonsense. On the PC it's trivial for me to see what any application is doing with a debugger. I can intercept all outbound traffic and many such things to know what an application is doing. This is much harder on Android, especially if you have a phone you can't root, or at least wont root because it'll void your warranty or ability to get updates.
It's the openness and ease of seeing what an application is doing on a PC relative to smartphones that is precisely what allows us much more knowledge of what our PCs are doing.
"There's no system on a Windows machine that will allow one program access to one file then forbid it from another."
That's not true either, you can trivially keep content in a file with permissions restricted to certain users such as a different user account than that is currently logged in preventing an application accessing it without an access control prompt. You can restrict permissions on individual files to certain roles also which can also act to block access to an application. Android has multiple users but it's implementation is bad and there's no way to use the system (let alone provision for roles) to control access.
The only thing you win at is being repeatedly retarded, so congratulations on that if it makes you feel better.
Hint: If someone's repeatedly insulting you, perhaps it's because you're idiotic and ignorant enough to deserve it. Being insulted doesn't make you right, it just means you're so far off base that someone has lost patience trying to even deal with your level of retardedness in a less offensive manner.
But it's okay, your posting history alone demonstrates you hate gay people and that's the only reason you're either ignorant, or at least feigning ignorance of biology. I get it I do, your daddy made you believe in fairy tales about a big man in the sky and that conflicts with your repressed homosexual feelings so you have to lash out as it's the only coping mechanism you know, and that's fine. But it's also why you'll get people bitch at you - it'd be far easier for you and everyone else if you just accepted what you are, gave up on believing in fairy tales from the bible or whatever and just came out.
It's bias to even allow such a case to happen in the backyard of an employer as large as Apple such that it's basically impossible to find a jury that doesn't have a direct, or indirect (i.e. family member employed by) connection to it in one way or another but apparently the US court system allows that too.
It's not a uniquely US problem though, remember The Pirate Bay vs. the music industry trial in Sweden? The judge there was a paid up member of a music industry lobby group. There was even an appeal on this basis but it was thrown out.
There's a reason stuff like this happens, there's a reason Obama carries out the first veto in decades to overrule the import ban on Apple products for patent infringement claiming protection of the smartphone market but doesn't do the same for Samsung when the situation is reversed. It's all part of how countries like the US maintain their position in the world over nations they see as threats (i.e. China) - by rigging the system in their favour whilst trying to retain an air of legitimacy by playing the game as they go.
You shouldn't really be too surprised that the same person that carries out such an out of the ordinary, blatantly unfair ITC trade ban veto in defence of Apple is also the same person that put Koh in office in the first place. That person being Obama.
It's a charade, it's always a charade. Knowing the right people doesn't just net you influence in politics, the world of finance and so forth. It awards you access even to favourable judicial action.
Yes, that's normally how it works. You can work either directly, or indirectly for someone. Your CV normally states who you directly worked for though - your direct employer, but there's nothing to list your indirect clients under those employment entries on your CV in the blurb, that's what most normal people do.
Perhaps your amazement over this revelation is because you're confusing "working for" for "employee of". The latter is something quite different, and not something I said. The latter is what you list on your CV under "Employment", the former is what you enter in the description for those clients you indirectly worked for under those entries if you wish to name them because you think they sound good.
You know it's far easier to just admit you're wrong rather than to try and play games with semantics right? Carrying on just makes you look even more stupid than when you failed to grasp even basic biology.
Really, you should probably just stop making yourself look ever more dumb about now.
Have you considered going to a different site? this site is for science and tech news, as you don't grasp basic science it's probably not really for you.
No, if your fathers genes were expressed exactly in you you would be a clone of your father. That's not how reproduction works, you have a chance of inheriting different traits from your father, your mother, and their ancestors before them. That means yes, you have a chance of inheriting your father's sexuality, but you also have a chance of not doing so, you could inherit your mothers sexuality, either of your grandparents, or even your great grandparents.
This is fairly basic biology, I'm amazed on a site like this there are people struggling with it.
Private Practice, Palo Alto, California, 2000-2008
From 2002 - 2008 that private practice was McDermott Will & Emery, for whom Apple was one of their clients who she worked for.
If you're going to scream shill you may want to check you're not wrong first. Unfortunately you are, so it's not surprising you opted to post anonymously to avoid such embarrassment that stems from failing to check facts.
You're still really confused about this, aren't you?
I'll try one last time.
Gay isn't a thing you do, it's a thing you are.
"To put it another way, what's the difference between a non-gay person and a gay person who doesn't exhibit homosexual behaviour? There's no difference."
Well one is not gay, and the other is gay. That's the difference. Even if the gay one doesn't actively carry out homosexual acts, they're still attracted to people of the same sex, just as the non-gay person is attracted to people of the opposite sex. Even if they don't carry out the act, they're are still what they are, there's no changing that.
It's not the point of diagnosis of a genetic trait that defines your genetics. If someone is born with a pre-disposition to violence they have a pre-disposition to violence at birth, the fact that trait is not exhibited until later in life does not change the fact they have that trait.
Being a violent person and having a pre-disposition to violence are two different things, just as being born homosexual is different to performing homosexual acts, it's possible to be gay without ever even engaging in a homosexual act even. By confusing the two you're implying with your argument that if you restrain someone for life who has a pre-disposition for violence so that they can't actually be violent that you're preventing them from having a pre-disposition to violence and hence altering their genetics. That is obviously complete and utter nonsense, just like your argument and understanding of this topic.
"Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple."
You mean other than the fact she acted as a lawyer for Apple under the law firm she used to work for?
No, nothing indicates bias whatsoever.