EdHominem

Isn't it amazing that you're in all the racist threads.

Oh yes, I'm sure you have so much interesting stuff to tell us about why you're a racist. Here I was thinking you're a normal immigrant-hater but you're a Jew-hater as well. You're like a master racist. A true virtuoso of vitriol.

Do you primarily hate Jews because they steal Christian babies, or because they conspire to keep the white man down? Do you hate foreigners for their swarthy good looks and their large ... hands, or do you hate them because they took your job? I'm sure the biggest thing you fear isn't your sister being hurt by an immigrant, it's her being seduced by an immigrant. When you get violent with the immigrant prostitutes you solicit, is it fear that you aren't really that different that causes the rage? Or is the rage always there because they're keeping you from achieving your white destiny?

You're so complex, with so much to share. A font of limitless wisdom.

Right, which is why you hate immigrants, and now we see jews as well - because they lie about you.

Oh well, I didn't understand you were only racist because you were the victim of a global conspiracy to keep you down. Carry on then.

Branching out from your usual immigrant-hatred for a change, or is this the norm for you?

Having a perpetual license is basically an infinite future expense even if the cost is trivial.

It's a one-time expense if budgeted properly. Buy a perpetuity to cover it. If you ever discontinue the service you can release an unlimited copy of the software and recover the value of the perpetuity.

Working in a cloud company all of us are pretty conscious of the cycles we consume in our architecture and the resources we consume on our client's machines. If we accidentally ran our debug code fleet-wide I'm sure we'd single-handedly bring more than a few coal peaker-plants online to handle the surge.

But our motivation is our customer's happiness and our pocketbook. For an advertiser you aren't the customer, you're the cattle.

So your adblocker is actually saving the world. One drop of oil at a time.

I think that's precisely the trump issue... "Reality" TV costs peanuts and gets more views, even if everything in it is staged.

You're the one who thinks you're informed, and that a judge would overrule the DA if they got out of hand, so I suggest you go find out.

I'm pretty much in the camp that the DA would fuck you up and the police and judge would all be in on it. Try telling a cop what the law is, especially if you're right...

The DA is the one who offers you a plea bargain, or not, and decides how many counts they charge you with. And recommends charges.

But yeah, after that it's all the judge.

So can we simply bulk-send registered letters to everyone involved so they know and we know they know?

If that's the case it's your responsibility to go over their head, all the way if necessary - as it would be for an engineer whose boss said to use Balsa wood for a support instead of steel.

If Edward had to do it, we do too.

Saying the US citizens are involved with that decision is, again, wrong and offensive.

How's that defense working for an ISIS funder?

"Oh, I didn't send the money for bombs, I sent it for their work with children..."

It can be 67 years at the whim of the DA. The maximum punishment is very real and they're just itching to use it.

If it was an unbiased roll of the dice that would be one thing, and the average and the distribution would be meaningful. But when it's arbitrary it doesn't matter what anyone else got, only what you'll get. And if you have any complaints about your treatment, etc, you're immediately in the full-penalty group.

The managers of this hypothetical software company would surely complain if their cars were remotely disabled because the manufacturer wanted to sell a new model. Similarly their customers should complain (via the courts) when the product they bought is remotely disabled to force them to upgrade.

As a sibling poster points out, running a license server is a trivial expense and if you require it for your product you should budget to keep it running. It's roughly $400 for a perpetuity paying $20/y to run the server indefinitely.

I've been around NB a fair bit, but never seen the monks.

> "When the dishes are clean, we can talk."

That's addressing a very different issue.

That's the generic answer to people who won't cleanup after themselves. Room setup and tool positions are a bit abstract but everyone understands dirty dishes. And everyone recognizes the type of person who always tries to play the X-card (religion in this case) to avoid cleaning up after themselves.

There's always some esoteric reason why they and their activities are special, but relating it to dishes usually cuts through the special and gets to the mundane - nobody wants to pick up after you to use the space.

No, this isn't. If that was your worry you especially wouldn't use proprietary software where the issue is much more prevalent. As others point out, you could pay FOSS maintainers if you wanted to.

Instead, people who don't use X make up excuses as to why not, rather than simply saying they like Y. If you like AutoCAD, use it.

In taking customer feedback it's important to only ask potential customers, not people who'd never use your product anyways. Even if their feedback is honest it won't help with what you're doing.

It's not a religious question - the same thing would come up if you wanted to setup a large electric train set, or hold a dance class, or anything, and then refused to return the space to its original state.

There are no (few) formal rules, just the weight on inconvenience. By physical necessity only one person can work with a tool at once so as long as you share nobody minds being temporarily without, but if you do something like take all the tools at once you're inconveniencing everyone and people will complain.

If you box up all the tools and move them out of the room you're inconveniencing all others who'd work in that area. If there are less of you than them, or if you're doing things you could do in any other space, you'll rightly be asked to move because it inconveniences you less than the people trying to do hacky things with the tools.

And leaving the space setup in your way is rude unless you're coming right back. Nobody minds if you run to the washroom but if you go to 7-11 for snacks you'll come back to find your tools in use at another station. If you go home for the night, you'll get complained to when you come back in the morning.

In other words: these meditation practices hack the mind.

Sure sure, but to they need the whole room to be left unusable by other hobbies to do so? Can't they hack the mind in the corner and clean up after themselves?

The Bodhisattva ideal has this streak of radical inclusiveness too. There's something here that might benefit both groups.

In the monks refusing to cleanup? "Oh, I don't do my dishes because it radically includes others in my cycle of life, peace brother."

How effective are they? Can you measure happiness? To what extent can technology help or hinder this? Wouldn't you want to know?

Oh god no, just do the bloody dishes and quit trying to dodge the issue.

This is all just being thrown out as some weird excuse for space-dominating actions and making the space less comfortable for everyone.

When the dishes are clean, we can talk.

Did you use a geiger counter to verify the dust was hot? Would something large enough to cause problems with the ram be large enough to detect?

They don't really, not ones that they won't delete when they want the problem to go away. Using corporate forums for problems is a losing game.

Yes, this letter should probably reference a bug#, but it should not be in the bug itself. And, because it's an open letter, you can go add a bug and make a PR to add it to the letter.

Hah, the party that actually tries to make healthcare available is ignoring people... Sure.

You're just clinically suggestible and have fallen for the "Only I know what you need" line. You might as well be a well-conditioned battering victim.

Do gyms have womens-only sections because women are not as good as men at going to the gym?!

"Infringes on your ability" never was the question.

There always were many clubs open to women - only a few here and there were men-only. In fact, by the time we got rid of men's only clubs they were rarely very influential so you can't even really argue that they were special. But, obviously I think, we aren't getting rid of men's only clubs simply to give women the choice of 50 clubs instead of 45, but because we feel it's unfair for people to be excluded.

Learning to code is not a competitive sport.

Right, so setup an event that is not and it'll be appropriate for all learners, of either gender. This is the sort I prefer to attend, fwiw.

But if you make it competitive (offering prizes, recognition, or mentors for instance) don't be surprised if people treat it that way.

Any presumptions of ability being brought into the discussion is being injected by your own viewpoints.

Why are there paralympics, if not to give the paralympians a chance against the uninjured?

I think it's a really ugly comparison, to be honest.

How it makes you feel is seldom related to the truth.

Also, not that your comfort would matter either way, I think you're hearing me say that there's an actual skill difference, which I am not, and I do not see one amongst my work peers. I'm talking about the message inherent in segregated events.

It's all-girl to encourage female participation and has absolutely nothing to do with ability.

How does making an event "no males" encouraging? That says a lot of things, but "You're just as good" is not one of them. How about just making the event about things that the girls in question care about?

And, even if it had only positive connotations, why is it fine to have all-girls events but not all-boys events?

Says who? Neither of us saw it, so we can't know.

There's a procedure though that we use to determine the likelihood of someone's guilt, based on evidence and legal arguments. Would you like to hear about it?

I think a lot of people say these grandiose things about smart people because they don't want to consider that they simply spent 30+ years doing little but their work/passion and are simply very good.

Feynman was a genius, but he dissects his own accomplishments and you can see how if you only knew this, this, this, and that, plus a few different methods of integration, it would have seemed obvious to you too.

tl;dr we do our heroes a disservice when we hold them in too high esteem, because we discount their very human, and very costly, accomplishments.

I assure you my daughter is very real and ceased to be a hypothetical about a year ago

Heh. "Hypothetical child or children of unspecified gender".

Calling it "weakness" to gravitate towards something that other members of your gender are doing is misplaced

There's a difference between doing something and discovering that most of the people doing it are your gender, and doing something that a higher-power (the event organizers) made gender-segregated.

And I don't mean there's a weakness in the person choosing the activity, I mean there's an apparent one you the parent are compensating for. Like if the event in question was basketball camps and you put your child in "Basketball for Short & Slow People". All the female-only events have a real taint of keeping out the strong performers so the weak can win too. imho it changes things from a primarily female-centric event which happens to cover programming to a people-centric event which forbids the "obviously" superior boys. What better way to make people feel second-class?

I'm not so naive to think that those were exactly welcoming enviornments for women.

Agreed. But that seems like the problem to solve, by making sure that the events we organize aren't hostile to anyone. But anyone is far wider than women, and the offenders are far more diverse than men.

I don't really understand what "handicaps" the existence of an all-girl coding camp represents to men or boys.

Not that there is a handicap, but that your son would feel like he's being given one so that he's on equal footing - just because he's male.

Who is getting really, genuinely hurt by this, in your opinion?

Everyone. Both children, and all of society.

Your daughter would feel less sense of accomplishment, your son would feel that his success is less important to you than hers or that he's already good so why strive. Children of either gender who don't learn in the stereotypical way the group leaders think they should and are thus less-served by the program. Trans kids would suffer from more physical-gender stereotyping and all these gender-specific camps would just prolong gender segregation for everyone.

It's not an either-or question though. I don't think you should ignore traditional sexism, which I agree is huge pretty much everywhere including many classrooms. But I think we should do more-inclusive things, not less, to combat it. Things that help everyone, not that exclude.

There's a real reason to have mentors who look like you, in whatever ways you see yourself, but not I think, to be separated from those who are different.

It's not non-public information, it's non-public insider information, upon which you cannot legally trade.

"illegal insider trading requires that you not only trade on the basis of important nonpublic information but that you also have some sort of duty to keep the information confidential." - Kiplinger

If you overhear insiders talking, you can trade on it. (Unless you're in a position where they have reason to expect that you cannot, such as if you're an employee, etc.)

Why are you going to tell your hypothetical daughter that it's fine for her to have gender-segregated events and tell your son that it's a bad thing for him to do so? (Because presumably you don't support men (or whites, etc) only clubs...)

And how do you do it without saying to your daughter that it's because she's weaker than your son and needs help? How do you explain to your son that he's so privileged that he needs handicaps to avoid hurting others? (Especially if he's not actually some alpha-male stereotype who embodies that.)

I see so much potential for accidentally hurting people with this path that I'd rather jump through a bunch of hurdles to make all events inclusive rather than reverse the original discrimination.

You're doing exactly what I'm talking about, you're trying to show how the authority you consider authoritative is right, not trying to understand how in a very real sense, reference counting also is not garbage collection because it lacks some critical feature from someone else's point of view.

If you're right, you're just some guy referencing an authority. Yay you. If you're wrong, you're totally ... all over the point of what someone else is saying. Instead of trying to force us to see how you're right, why not try to see how someone else isn't wrong?

More like, you're free to ignore the common-sense suggestion to examine the algorithms used as they pertain to your use case, just because someone once said "In theory these two things are equivalent". But it won't help you once you hit the inevitable edge case.

Terminology is useful right up until it isn't. Resting on definitions rather than seeking proper descriptions is a great way to fail spectacularly.

They offer a system that you can time because they know most people have superstitions that don't work, and they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate when someone finds a method that does work.

If they don't want a time-able system they should remove the feature that lets you stop the wheels. Of course they never will because selective enforcement is profitable so we should remove their legal protection and make them treat everyone equally.

gives the house an additional edge

Technically, additional decks reduce the expected edge of a card-counter who has only seen some number of cards. Which functions the same way...

They could have a solution out the door in less than 24h but it may be a mitigation (ie, disable the service) rather than a proper fix. But that's pretty easy. In fact, it's usually the first thing an engineer does when verifying a bug report - "Ok I've reproduced it, now let's shut off the service and make sure the problem goes away."

Release a patch that disables the vulnerable service and give people a way to bypass that and turn it back on once they've taken proper internal measures. (Read the CVE, block ports, etc...)