Maybe the UK is less willing to allow this than Sweden, who have a track record of breaking their own laws to keep the Americans happy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Given that the truth is that Chelsea Manning is female, it's good to hear that you don't feel she's trying to control how you think.
Of course, your logic is flawed in more ways than I can be arsed to enumerate, not least that humouring others' delusions would make you more stupid. Leaving aside whether you could become more stupid it's generally the case that the more intelligent someone is, the greater the allowances they need to make for those around them. It doesn't make them more stupid, it means they're tolerant, accepting and have the understanding needed to stop being a total cunt.
Me, I'm happy to act a total cunt and tell you straight: You're just stupid.
While I do agree, and I tend to use male or female pronouns appropriate to how someone presents themselves (to the extent that I'll refer to men at a tarts & vicars party as 'her') I do struggle somewhat with the multitude of additional pronouns the gender fluid are seeking to introduce and mandate.
Sie or zie or ze or hie or hir? Sorry, no. Him/her/it is as much as my limited brain can handle, pick one of those and I'll do my best to remember.
Are you shitting me? My manager is younger than me, female and American so of course I swear while talking with her - because none of those things, including her being my boss, are relevant.
Anybody trying to preach at me tends not to hear me swearing at them. The more I'm pissed off with someone the more polite I get, because I'm choosing my words very fucking carefully. What I really want to say to most preachers would get me arrested.
It's called language. Some of us have a strong command of it. Some of you don't. It's not our fault if some delicate fuckwit can't handle the word cunt.
Apologies that reality doesn't fit into your limited binary exclusion zone. But it's ok, if being an ignorant cunt was fatal then humanity would have become extinct years ago, so you're probably not going to die from it.
The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap.
The five star hotel I stayed in would maybe only be a 4 star elsewhere, but the $30/night I paid is definitely cheap for that quality.
The food in the buffet is inedible
Fortunately there are plenty of other options available, including a bloody excellent steak house I found.
I did not find the shows enjoyable
Ah, ok. I can't help you there. As with one of the other replies, I did find Penn & Teller every bit as entertaining as I'd hoped, and I also enjoyed the weird watery alternative to Cirque du Soleil that I went to. But that's all very subjective and I hope the shows weren't too costly for you.
Las Vegas is horribly fake and quite awful in many ways, but the hotels, the food and the shows are not things I'd criticise.
Keep your systems updated, remove encryption standards that are out of date, close services and ports you don't need, don't use Windows, and if you must, don't give your users Administrator or root rights and if your software tells you otherwise, get different software.
Ok, you've eliminated maybe 10% of the attack vectors.
will result in a near zero chance of getting hacked
Oh, I see. You know nothing about security.
You WILL get hacked. Expect it, plan for it, invest in delaying it for as long as possible and minimising its impact when it does, but you will get hacked.
The banks can't be trusted, and the investors can't know what the risk is when the banks lie about it. That is what the government is saying with Uber because that's EXACTLY what the banks are doing again.
You're demonstrating a fair amount of ignorance yourself here.
Banks don't just loan based on
The banks didn't provide the loans. The banks helped Uber secure investment from others, and likely made a hefty profit on their fees.
This is precisely why the regulators are getting grumpy. The banks have a history of disregarding whether they're providing those investors with a viable and sensible product or not - and that's explicitly one of the factors that led to the financial crash.
The banks haven't bet on anything. They've facilitated others making a sizeable and very risky bet, and received a safe guaranteed income as a result.
How does my statement contradict the information you've pulled from their site?
That quote at no point says, "We will not sell your data" and indeed explicitly says they'll use it to understand gaps in their services. That's a goatse sized gaping hole in any pretense about privacy.
I think it's very appropriate for an employer to 'no comment' the reasons a member of staff left the organisation, particularly in public.
As you highlight, Stallman can't win here. At least by protecting the privacy of the former employee he isn't guaranteeing a loss.
In the UK transgenderism is a protected characteristic, so anybody getting fired has legal recourse available to them. I'm not sure whether that's the case in the jurisdiction involved, but I'm sure that if discrimination did occur then action could be taken.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it does now raise the question of which poor cunt is now going to get tortured by the sadists running the prison.
Can't expect them to go without their jollies after all..
Maybe the UK is less willing to allow this than Sweden, who have a track record of breaking their own laws to keep the Americans happy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, my doctor uses the term nutsack too. Which is fine until she wants to grab it.
Given that the truth is that Chelsea Manning is female, it's good to hear that you don't feel she's trying to control how you think.
Of course, your logic is flawed in more ways than I can be arsed to enumerate, not least that humouring others' delusions would make you more stupid. Leaving aside whether you could become more stupid it's generally the case that the more intelligent someone is, the greater the allowances they need to make for those around them. It doesn't make them more stupid, it means they're tolerant, accepting and have the understanding needed to stop being a total cunt.
Me, I'm happy to act a total cunt and tell you straight: You're just stupid.
While I do agree, and I tend to use male or female pronouns appropriate to how someone presents themselves (to the extent that I'll refer to men at a tarts & vicars party as 'her') I do struggle somewhat with the multitude of additional pronouns the gender fluid are seeking to introduce and mandate.
Sie or zie or ze or hie or hir? Sorry, no. Him/her/it is as much as my limited brain can handle, pick one of those and I'll do my best to remember.
The only "shocking" item in his release was a video of a US Attack helicopter doing what they are supposed to be doing in a fucking war.
You must be American. Only fucking Americans think US attack helicopters are supposed to be killing civilians and children.
Are you shitting me? My manager is younger than me, female and American so of course I swear while talking with her - because none of those things, including her being my boss, are relevant.
Anybody trying to preach at me tends not to hear me swearing at them. The more I'm pissed off with someone the more polite I get, because I'm choosing my words very fucking carefully. What I really want to say to most preachers would get me arrested.
It's called language. Some of us have a strong command of it. Some of you don't. It's not our fault if some delicate fuckwit can't handle the word cunt.
I would agree but it turns out my alternate persona is nearly as big an arsehole as I am.
I can't use profanity because my Facebook Friends are actual friends, acquaintances, family and stuff.
I swear when talking to friends, acquaintances, family and.. well everybody.
"Want to go to the cinema tonight?" "Fuck that, I'm not paying their shitty prices. Lets go to that dance instead"
This is called conversation and people that can't handle it can fuck off.
Apologies that reality doesn't fit into your limited binary exclusion zone. But it's ok, if being an ignorant cunt was fatal then humanity would have become extinct years ago, so you're probably not going to die from it.
Hence having an accomplice that arrives at the table, places some heavy bets then leaves. Meanwhile you keep playing the same $4 bet every hand.
The hotels I've seen are not luxurious, nor are they cheap.
The five star hotel I stayed in would maybe only be a 4 star elsewhere, but the $30/night I paid is definitely cheap for that quality.
The food in the buffet is inedible
Fortunately there are plenty of other options available, including a bloody excellent steak house I found.
I did not find the shows enjoyable
Ah, ok. I can't help you there. As with one of the other replies, I did find Penn & Teller every bit as entertaining as I'd hoped, and I also enjoyed the weird watery alternative to Cirque du Soleil that I went to. But that's all very subjective and I hope the shows weren't too costly for you.
Las Vegas is horribly fake and quite awful in many ways, but the hotels, the food and the shows are not things I'd criticise.
Why would I imagine a news story like that? It has no fucking relevance at all.
Shit, why am I replying to an obvious troll. I must be tired. Goodnight.
You may want to refresh your understanding of US laws. They're a bit outdated.
Keep your systems updated, remove encryption standards that are out of date, close services and ports you don't need, don't use Windows, and if you must, don't give your users Administrator or root rights and if your software tells you otherwise, get different software.
Ok, you've eliminated maybe 10% of the attack vectors.
will result in a near zero chance of getting hacked
Oh, I see. You know nothing about security.
You WILL get hacked. Expect it, plan for it, invest in delaying it for as long as possible and minimising its impact when it does, but you will get hacked.
The banks can't be trusted, and the investors can't know what the risk is when the banks lie about it. That is what the government is saying with Uber because that's EXACTLY what the banks are doing again.
You appear to be violently agreeing with me.
The government isn't criticising the institutional investors, its criticising the banks for their role.
So no, your comment remains utter fucking nonsense and you've failed miserably to understand the situation or my comment.
You're demonstrating a fair amount of ignorance yourself here.
Banks don't just loan based on
The banks didn't provide the loans. The banks helped Uber secure investment from others, and likely made a hefty profit on their fees.
This is precisely why the regulators are getting grumpy. The banks have a history of disregarding whether they're providing those investors with a viable and sensible product or not - and that's explicitly one of the factors that led to the financial crash.
The banks haven't bet on anything. They've facilitated others making a sizeable and very risky bet, and received a safe guaranteed income as a result.
How does my statement contradict the information you've pulled from their site?
That quote at no point says, "We will not sell your data" and indeed explicitly says they'll use it to understand gaps in their services. That's a goatse sized gaping hole in any pretense about privacy.
I'd have thought the correct answer is, "It died in ten days, just give me a new one".
If he wants to avoid data loss then yes, a hard disk transplant would be required. Although I'd be waiving the fee for that some companies wouldn't.
What we don't know is whether he was offered the replacement device sans transplant.
for engineering purposes, not ads
While the engineering purposes are valid I'm fairly sure that Microsoft are happily exploiting the commercial value of that data too.
They're pulling far too fucking much data for it to be purely engineering anyway.
I don't have a Microsoft account. I use a local account only.
So the fact they're showing them as being in-stock means either they're false advertising or you're the one with a failure.
I know where my money sits.
Well, it's societal convention. Mostly as a man it's kind of nice to have an option to avoid the horrific filth regularly found in the ladies' anyway.
I think it's very appropriate for an employer to 'no comment' the reasons a member of staff left the organisation, particularly in public.
As you highlight, Stallman can't win here. At least by protecting the privacy of the former employee he isn't guaranteeing a loss.
In the UK transgenderism is a protected characteristic, so anybody getting fired has legal recourse available to them. I'm not sure whether that's the case in the jurisdiction involved, but I'm sure that if discrimination did occur then action could be taken.