It isn't clear that I'm saying that decreasing diversity of sexuality is contributing to the rise in hate crimes against minority sexualities? Maybe the problem is that you're not actually trying to understand.
Yeah, good point. Seems pretty likely that a growing queer population has led to violence against queers. God, why won't the queers stop doing hate crimes to themselves!
Well, you snipped out other parts of that sentence that are probably struggles you can understand. And then you failed to quote the section near the end of the summary describing a notable impact of the declining diversity: increased anti-queer violence.
These are people who are supposed to be professional. Professional peopla are paid to get a job finished, not to be working for the clock.
This is a scam, and it's disgusting to moralize about it. Employers hire with claims that working hours are (say) 9–5, which prospective employees factor into their compensation negotiation. When the employer reneges on working hours, demanding more time and effort, they're robbing their employees. It's not like it goes the other way around: Well, the job is done ahead of schedule! Everyone gets the rest of the day off, with pay! Nonsense, they just advance work that was planned for later. This is called "productivity".
It may be naive to believe employers won't scam their employees into producing more than they agreed in negotiations, but it certainly shouldn't be framed as some kind of failing when people expect to have the terms of their employment honored.
Replying to both your comments together, because the second surely expounds on the first.
Straight out of page 48 of Agenda 21 [un.org].
So, before I respond to the content of that, let's address the elephant in the room: this is the hallmark of conspiracy theory, which isn't an immediate dismissal of an idea but is surely an alarm bell to look closer at some claims. So, I did look closer, at page 48 of Agenda 21, and I came to the following conclusions:
1. No, it's not straight out of that page of that document. The only way it seems remotely relevant is that it seems you're preoccupied with that document. 2. Page 48 of Agenda 21 is pretty lame fodder for this kind of paranoia. It is basically suggesting that certain existing transportation funding be reallocated to better address need, which is entirely consistent with UN public policy so we don't need to go referring to nefarious-sounding documents. 3. The only thing on that page that can remotely be construed as "car hostile" is the following: "Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other services of high standard (e.g. water supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads, telecommunications) provided to higher income neighbourhoods;" But it's worth noting that it otherwise flies in the face of your claim (which I'll address more directly, below) that this is designed to increase dependence on government services. If anything, the reduction in subsidies should produce a reduction in dependence, right? By reallocating those funds, the theory goes, it becomes essentially a wash.
Some people think...
Hey look. If you're going to post some black helicopters nonsense based on innuendo and fabrication, at least have the courage of conscience to avoid weasel words like "some people think". Own it, you believe this idea. That's why you're sharing it so candidly.
Some people think that this is part of a coordinated effort by governments, worldwide, to increase their own power by coralling the bulk of their populations in high-density urban areas, limiting their access to transportation, and making them totally dependent on government controlled services.
By that model, "Transit oriented developments" (i.e. no space to park a car for you - go only where and when public transit deigns to take you), "walkable neighborhoods", and "getting people over their love affair with cars" (by designing road networks to make commuting and recreational travel difficult and unpleasant) isn't enough. They've been closing roads in much of the rural areas, in the name of "protecting the environment". Next step: Make it a public policy to abandon or close non-wilderness rural roads.
[...]
You misunderstand the urban-planning term of art (which may have been chosen to sell you on that idea.)
"Walkable neighborhoods" are NOT "pedestrian friendly". They are "car hostile". They involve high-density housing with no practical automobile access. You are expected to do all your shopping by walking to the stores and carrying the groceries or other goods back home.
The stores, of course, have a small, captive, clientele. So they don't have the economy of scale of, say, a supermarket, and are priced like a convenience store. (Imagine only being able to get groceries from your local 7-11 and having to carry them home.)
If your home is in a "transit-oriented development" - and it actually HAS some transit - you can try carrying your groceries back on a bus or (if you're VERY lucky, aren't working, and can time your shopping trip for rush hour) a commuter train.
(Of course such high-density developments are primarily constructed in low-income neighborhoods. So the transit agencies get their bond measures through by promising the higher-income cities they serve that they will refuse to serve the developments, to avoid becoming a commuter-service for petty thieves and burglary rings into their ri
False. It sees disproportionately high use. In terms of the web (where Flash matters), iOS use is much larger than its market share when compared to the market leader, Android. The distortion ends there, as the next runner up isn't worth mentioning in terms of usage share.
Fact is, iOS is influential beyond its units shipped. Challenge it with a more influential offering, or accept it.
As annoying as the update process is, the annoyance isn't even the worst part. Adobe is still training users to use poor judgment in installing software. The process you described, at least on my Mac, has an additional step you didn't mention: enter admin password. Nothing is stopping malware from using the same process, which is exactly what a lot of malware does. It's very difficult for users to tell the difference.
My process for updating Flash is even more annoying, in an effort to try to avoid lookalikes:
1. See popup 2. Dismiss it 3. Go to Flash in System Preferences, check for updates there 4. Click to update 5. Browser page opens 6. Download installer (it actually does this automatically) 7. Verify that it's actually coming from an *.adobe.com page 8. Run installer 9. Check "Notify me to install updates" because every single update auto-checks "Allow Adobe to install updates (recommended)" 10. Quit browsers 11. Start installation, entering admin password 12. Flash will now not nag me for another 2 days or so
There was a time when Adobe wasn't code signing the damn package, too. That was nerve wracking.
1. Racist thing exists or happens. (This also works for basically any other kind of power imbalance, but I'm trying to stay relevant.) 2. Almost always, nothing gets done about it. In those cases, skip step 3. 3. On rare occasions, racist thing is addressed, reversed, reduced, or merely talked about. 4. Defensive, ignorant, entitled fucks get upset because... no actual harm was done to them... but I guess they didn't like voluntarily finding out that racism was maybe marginally reduced, but they couldn't be bothered to, like, not read about it or something. 5. Those defensive ignorant entitled fucks change the narrative so that they're the victims because of some made up opposite day version of reality. 6. For some reason this becomes the baseline framing when we return to step 1 for the next round. (By the way, this is why people actually know what the fuck "politically incorrect" and "SJW" are supposed to mean.) 7. Actually calling any of this out for its own racism is treated as proof of the defensive ignorant entitled fuck's delusions, bolstering the baseline framing in step 6. 8. Go to 1. Or 2.
In this case, the "punitive damages" were negative public reactions, which extracted an apology (and, one hopes, a bug fix?). I'm sure you're not suggesting that it was wrong for offended parties to express their negative public reactions, or that the apology issued by Google was an undue burden? Let's also agree that a bug fix is actually in Google's interest.
So I'm kind of at a loss as to how that enormous corporation was harmed by these out of control PC Police. Or whatever is the framing du jour.
One big reason reelection is so out of sync with approval is that they measure different constituencies. Voters often support their representatives much more than the whole congress.
You ignored the post with actual citation of evidence and attacked a strawman of the post directly below it from the same person. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Yeah okay but that website is kind of a buckshot approach to dismissing any kind of nonsense it sees fit. Which would be fine, until you actually start reading it. Let's take a stroll through, uh, random selections from just above the fold on the "rituals" page. What's the harm with "rituals"?
He passed out while using a native american sweat lodge and his friends thought he was astral travelling. They used rituals to try to wake him up. In reality he was extremely dehydrated and died at a hospital.
What rituals? What kind of rituals do people use in a "native american[sic] sweat lodge" to "wake up"? This is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from Reefer Madness.
During a social club ritual initiation, someone mistook a fully loaded gun for one loaded with blanks. He died of a gunshot wound.
That has nothing to do with ritual initiations, and everything to do with being absolute morons with guns.
The liver of the fugu fish is widely known to be toxic, but he believed he could survive the poison. He ate four of them as a demonstration. Within minutes he died of paralysis and convulsions.
That's not a ritual, that's a known-dangerous delicacy that's banned because it's known-dangerous.
Welp.
Let's go find out about the harm of feng shui.
The neighbors both believed in feng shui, but didn't get along with each other. When one put a mirror on their house to reflect bad luck, the other did the same and the feud escalated. The argument ended up in the street with one person dead.
Unless the claim is that the mirrors made them do it... I'm pretty sure morons kill each other over sports and musical taste too. What's the harm in liking basic human recreation, amirite?
Okay but surely believing in ghosts is harmful right?
Helen owned a house that she believed was haunted, and she promoted that fact publicly. Unfortunately, she did not disclose that to the buyer of her house, who decided he didn't want a haunted house. A long court case resulted, which Helen lost.
Seems like both of them believed in ghosts, but one of them made out pretty well.
Rachel and her friends decided to go ghost hunting near a local haunted house. They didn't realize the owner of the house did not like visitors, and owned a gun. She ended up with a gunshot to the head and a long hospital stay.
I'm sure that Rachel wouldn't have been shot if she'd been trespassing for scientific reasons.
Okay what's the harm of Holocaust denial? LOL holy fuck. Apparently the only harm in Holocaust denial, according to this idiotic website, is that societies which don't prevent speech might fine or arrest you for unpopular speech.
The thing that's astonishing, and that Orwell got wrong, is that you will find astute people who actually defend this fully aware of the fact that they will attack it in the future—just as you find people now who defend the stability of Assad's regime who will readily admit they attacked it in the recent past. We were not always at war with Eurasia, but we may well be again in the near future and we should always be at the ready to be craven profiteers of whatever short-sighted gain can be had in any version of the 24 hour news cycle.
So toughen up, little Ali Amin, because your ass belongs to the Commonwealth of Virginia now, and they are going to teach you that sympathizing with the lunatics who behead people or burn people alive comes with a price. Personally I wish the authorities would just report you had hung yourself in your cell and call it a day.
Damn right. Get ready to deal with a slightly-to-moderately different bunch of lunatics and their nominally distinguishable abuse.
I'm far more worried that this will be used to defend some kind of surveillance program as having "prevented an attack", or that it'll be used without context as precedent of curtailing speech without controversy.
Slashdot Mirror
That was sarcasm...
It isn't clear that I'm saying that decreasing diversity of sexuality is contributing to the rise in hate crimes against minority sexualities? Maybe the problem is that you're not actually trying to understand.
Huh? People are doing violence against queers.
Yeah, good point. Seems pretty likely that a growing queer population has led to violence against queers. God, why won't the queers stop doing hate crimes to themselves!
Well, you snipped out other parts of that sentence that are probably struggles you can understand. And then you failed to quote the section near the end of the summary describing a notable impact of the declining diversity: increased anti-queer violence.
Including content from such noted leftist wacko publications as Bloomberg Business, no less...
These are people who are supposed to be professional. Professional peopla are paid to get a job finished, not to be working for the clock.
This is a scam, and it's disgusting to moralize about it. Employers hire with claims that working hours are (say) 9–5, which prospective employees factor into their compensation negotiation. When the employer reneges on working hours, demanding more time and effort, they're robbing their employees. It's not like it goes the other way around: Well, the job is done ahead of schedule! Everyone gets the rest of the day off, with pay! Nonsense, they just advance work that was planned for later. This is called "productivity".
It may be naive to believe employers won't scam their employees into producing more than they agreed in negotiations, but it certainly shouldn't be framed as some kind of failing when people expect to have the terms of their employment honored.
Replying to both your comments together, because the second surely expounds on the first.
Straight out of page 48 of Agenda 21 [un.org].
So, before I respond to the content of that, let's address the elephant in the room: this is the hallmark of conspiracy theory, which isn't an immediate dismissal of an idea but is surely an alarm bell to look closer at some claims. So, I did look closer, at page 48 of Agenda 21, and I came to the following conclusions:
1. No, it's not straight out of that page of that document. The only way it seems remotely relevant is that it seems you're preoccupied with that document.
2. Page 48 of Agenda 21 is pretty lame fodder for this kind of paranoia. It is basically suggesting that certain existing transportation funding be reallocated to better address need, which is entirely consistent with UN public policy so we don't need to go referring to nefarious-sounding documents.
3. The only thing on that page that can remotely be construed as "car hostile" is the following: "Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other services of high standard (e.g. water supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads, telecommunications) provided to higher income neighbourhoods;" But it's worth noting that it otherwise flies in the face of your claim (which I'll address more directly, below) that this is designed to increase dependence on government services. If anything, the reduction in subsidies should produce a reduction in dependence, right? By reallocating those funds, the theory goes, it becomes essentially a wash.
Some people think...
Hey look. If you're going to post some black helicopters nonsense based on innuendo and fabrication, at least have the courage of conscience to avoid weasel words like "some people think". Own it, you believe this idea. That's why you're sharing it so candidly.
Some people think that this is part of a coordinated effort by governments, worldwide, to increase their own power by coralling the bulk of their populations in high-density urban areas, limiting their access to transportation, and making them totally dependent on government controlled services.
By that model, "Transit oriented developments" (i.e. no space to park a car for you - go only where and when public transit deigns to take you), "walkable neighborhoods", and "getting people over their love affair with cars" (by designing road networks to make commuting and recreational travel difficult and unpleasant) isn't enough. They've been closing roads in much of the rural areas, in the name of "protecting the environment". Next step: Make it a public policy to abandon or close non-wilderness rural roads.
[...]
You misunderstand the urban-planning term of art (which may have been chosen to sell you on that idea.)
"Walkable neighborhoods" are NOT "pedestrian friendly". They are "car hostile". They involve high-density housing with no practical automobile access. You are expected to do all your shopping by walking to the stores and carrying the groceries or other goods back home.
The stores, of course, have a small, captive, clientele. So they don't have the economy of scale of, say, a supermarket, and are priced like a convenience store. (Imagine only being able to get groceries from your local 7-11 and having to carry them home.)
If your home is in a "transit-oriented development" - and it actually HAS some transit - you can try carrying your groceries back on a bus or (if you're VERY lucky, aren't working, and can time your shopping trip for rush hour) a commuter train.
(Of course such high-density developments are primarily constructed in low-income neighborhoods. So the transit agencies get their bond measures through by promising the higher-income cities they serve that they will refuse to serve the developments, to avoid becoming a commuter-service for petty thieves and burglary rings into their ri
LOL Angular 2.
iOS actually sees relatively little use.
False. It sees disproportionately high use. In terms of the web (where Flash matters), iOS use is much larger than its market share when compared to the market leader, Android. The distortion ends there, as the next runner up isn't worth mentioning in terms of usage share.
Fact is, iOS is influential beyond its units shipped. Challenge it with a more influential offering, or accept it.
As annoying as the update process is, the annoyance isn't even the worst part. Adobe is still training users to use poor judgment in installing software. The process you described, at least on my Mac, has an additional step you didn't mention: enter admin password. Nothing is stopping malware from using the same process, which is exactly what a lot of malware does. It's very difficult for users to tell the difference.
My process for updating Flash is even more annoying, in an effort to try to avoid lookalikes:
1. See popup
2. Dismiss it
3. Go to Flash in System Preferences, check for updates there
4. Click to update
5. Browser page opens
6. Download installer (it actually does this automatically)
7. Verify that it's actually coming from an *.adobe.com page
8. Run installer
9. Check "Notify me to install updates" because every single update auto-checks "Allow Adobe to install updates (recommended)"
10. Quit browsers
11. Start installation, entering admin password
12. Flash will now not nag me for another 2 days or so
There was a time when Adobe wasn't code signing the damn package, too. That was nerve wracking.
1. Racist thing exists or happens. (This also works for basically any other kind of power imbalance, but I'm trying to stay relevant.)
2. Almost always, nothing gets done about it. In those cases, skip step 3.
3. On rare occasions, racist thing is addressed, reversed, reduced, or merely talked about.
4. Defensive, ignorant, entitled fucks get upset because... no actual harm was done to them... but I guess they didn't like voluntarily finding out that racism was maybe marginally reduced, but they couldn't be bothered to, like, not read about it or something.
5. Those defensive ignorant entitled fucks change the narrative so that they're the victims because of some made up opposite day version of reality.
6. For some reason this becomes the baseline framing when we return to step 1 for the next round. (By the way, this is why people actually know what the fuck "politically incorrect" and "SJW" are supposed to mean.)
7. Actually calling any of this out for its own racism is treated as proof of the defensive ignorant entitled fuck's delusions, bolstering the baseline framing in step 6.
8. Go to 1. Or 2.
In this case, the "punitive damages" were negative public reactions, which extracted an apology (and, one hopes, a bug fix?). I'm sure you're not suggesting that it was wrong for offended parties to express their negative public reactions, or that the apology issued by Google was an undue burden? Let's also agree that a bug fix is actually in Google's interest.
So I'm kind of at a loss as to how that enormous corporation was harmed by these out of control PC Police. Or whatever is the framing du jour.
One big reason reelection is so out of sync with approval is that they measure different constituencies. Voters often support their representatives much more than the whole congress.
Only a little bit hungry. He'll be convinced before breakfast.
Everything is up for debate. Otherwise you have given up science and adopted your own brand of quackery.
You ignored the post with actual citation of evidence and attacked a strawman of the post directly below it from the same person. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Yeah okay but that website is kind of a buckshot approach to dismissing any kind of nonsense it sees fit. Which would be fine, until you actually start reading it. Let's take a stroll through, uh, random selections from just above the fold on the "rituals" page. What's the harm with "rituals"?
He passed out while using a native american sweat lodge and his friends thought he was astral travelling. They used rituals to try to wake him up. In reality he was extremely dehydrated and died at a hospital.
What rituals? What kind of rituals do people use in a "native american[sic] sweat lodge" to "wake up"? This is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from Reefer Madness.
During a social club ritual initiation, someone mistook a fully loaded gun for one loaded with blanks. He died of a gunshot wound.
That has nothing to do with ritual initiations, and everything to do with being absolute morons with guns.
The liver of the fugu fish is widely known to be toxic, but he believed he could survive the poison. He ate four of them as a demonstration. Within minutes he died of paralysis and convulsions.
That's not a ritual, that's a known-dangerous delicacy that's banned because it's known-dangerous.
Welp.
Let's go find out about the harm of feng shui.
The neighbors both believed in feng shui, but didn't get along with each other. When one put a mirror on their house to reflect bad luck, the other did the same and the feud escalated. The argument ended up in the street with one person dead.
Unless the claim is that the mirrors made them do it... I'm pretty sure morons kill each other over sports and musical taste too. What's the harm in liking basic human recreation, amirite?
Okay but surely believing in ghosts is harmful right?
Helen owned a house that she believed was haunted, and she promoted that fact publicly. Unfortunately, she did not disclose that to the buyer of her house, who decided he didn't want a haunted house. A long court case resulted, which Helen lost.
Seems like both of them believed in ghosts, but one of them made out pretty well.
Rachel and her friends decided to go ghost hunting near a local haunted house. They didn't realize the owner of the house did not like visitors, and owned a gun. She ended up with a gunshot to the head and a long hospital stay.
I'm sure that Rachel wouldn't have been shot if she'd been trespassing for scientific reasons.
Okay what's the harm of Holocaust denial? LOL holy fuck. Apparently the only harm in Holocaust denial, according to this idiotic website, is that societies which don't prevent speech might fine or arrest you for unpopular speech.
Yeah sorry, pick a better source.
But that is pure information, removed from any intent for use.
Yo, if you want to explode some things there is explosives info in this publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - now am I a terrorist?
BTW that particular book is also REALLY POORLY WRITTEN. [etc]
Yet people are still trying to ban it.
Any way you slice it, how-to content should be protected speech.
And then your app can have the desirable quality of feeling equally not-at-home on every platform.
A whole lot of random stuff about ass and someone who's confused about whether the gays or the islams are the enemy. Sharpen your point.
The thing that's astonishing, and that Orwell got wrong, is that you will find astute people who actually defend this fully aware of the fact that they will attack it in the future—just as you find people now who defend the stability of Assad's regime who will readily admit they attacked it in the recent past. We were not always at war with Eurasia, but we may well be again in the near future and we should always be at the ready to be craven profiteers of whatever short-sighted gain can be had in any version of the 24 hour news cycle.
So toughen up, little Ali Amin, because your ass belongs to the Commonwealth of Virginia now, and
they are going to teach you that sympathizing with the lunatics who behead people or burn people
alive comes with a price. Personally I wish the authorities would just report you had hung yourself in
your cell and call it a day.
Damn right. Get ready to deal with a slightly-to-moderately different bunch of lunatics and their nominally distinguishable abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm far more worried that this will be used to defend some kind of surveillance program as having "prevented an attack", or that it'll be used without context as precedent of curtailing speech without controversy.