Oh I would, and that he may go completely broke too, and die miserable, alone, and in pain. These people's greed has caused enormous harm and cost uncountable lives. That's what keeping this knowledge to yourself does, otherwise our doctors would still be doing bloodletting and sacrificing small animals. And in a certain way, we still are. Which doctor has the money to access all those journals? Lost of clues to a cure for lots of diseases are probably buried somewhere in expensive journals.
But noo, please for the love of money withhold the doctor that information, let him pay thousands of dollars for it, so that he will not read any of it, and let his patients suffer and die. Like they did when we were still doing bloodletting.
I'm not arguing that what Elsevier is doing is good, but I do think desiring terrible things for others however "bad" we may perceive them to be is ultimately not productive.
The complexity in that few sentences you wrote alone wants me to keep doing nice and simple and reliable ipv4. I don't think I'll ever transition, because the amount of knowledge I have to acquire to trust myself with all the complexities of ipv6 is gigantic. Ipv4 however, is simple. I can have a simple firewall at home that does NAT, a DHCP server and I'm done and secure. Well ok, secure enough. But I don't even know how to find out what documentation to study to make that same setup on ipv6.
Masquerading NAT is not a security feature. You need state tracking to build a masquerading NAT (so that your residential gateway knows which internal machine to route reply traffic to), and once you have state tracking, you can build a stateful firewall. It doesn't matter which version of IP is carrying the traffic, it still has to go through your gateway before it can get to you, and the gateway can do all the policing you want it to.
If you want certain services on your internal machines to be reachable from the outside over IPv6, you open up that service's port in your gateway's firewall configuration, which is ... exactly what you do for IPv4 too.
OpenWRT (a popular third-party residential gateway firmware) has a stateful IPv4 and IPv6 firewall and DHCPv6/PD support out of the box. You flash it, and if your ISP provides IPv6, you're done. If they don't, you can set up e.g. a 6in4 tunnel with Hurricane Electric, and you're done.
It's not complicated. Yes, you have to learn some things, but they're the same things you had to learn when you were starting out with IPv4.
The first sentence of the article is also pretty funny: "Facebook stressed it will not control the new digital currency and users don’t need to trust Facebook in order to use it"
It's like Boeing saying: Boeing doesn't fly your plane, your pilot does, so you don't have to trust Boeing in order to fly on Boeing airplanes.
If it would only run flawlessly on Windows, I would gladly run Postgres. It doesn't though, so I chose MySQL for my project. This was two years ago however, things might have changed.
*edit: I recognize a lot of what you mentioned though, and MySQL sure has its draw backs. Still it seems to work fine for a lot of people.
FWIW we're running a lot of instances on Windows, and there are differences for sure, performance falls off a cliff, but for testing it's decent enough.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, under US military control, every year, millions of acres of Opium are planted, harvested, processed, packaged and shipped, suplying over 90% of the worlds' Heroin. [0]
It's so nice to learn that back then, as now, trans people at some point in their live transitioned and then tried to live out their lives as the other gender, and were successful at it. Some only being found out after death or by becoming really ill. Luckily we're more open about it now. Also, now, as back then, most trans people just want to fit in and not be labeled 'other', or 'trans' for that matter.
When society doesn't believe you exist, or that your existence is simply an expression of mental illness or moral degradation, then such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels provided by that society.
But yes, it is also useful to be able to abandon those labels altogether, or not have them define one's identity.
> such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels
Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal?
I also kind of find it stroking with a way to broad of a brush to say that "society" puts "hostile labels" on groups. This isn't always the case. I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do.
>Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal?
I think it does, albeit slowly and not necessarily without backlash. The alternative to having LGBT people assert their own identity is to have their identity asserted for them, by people who may not understand them or who may be hostile to them, and that sort of thing never goes well.
And the desired goal is to remove the stigma of LGBT existence and have it be accepted as being normal. One way to facilitate that normalization is for LGBT people to simply not be hidden, and to participate in society, and the most obvious way to do that is as part of a culture that can be easily recognized by an outgroup.
It's progress for people to simply complain about there being too much gay representation in the media, rather than for it to be illegal to represent it as anything but an illness (as was the case under the Hayes code.)
>I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do.
This seems to trip a lot of people up when discussions about the intersections of race, gender and culture come up. It's difficult to argue that, for instance, toxic aspects of masculinity can exist without people interpreting that as a claim that all masculinity is toxic and that, therefore, all men are toxic. Likewise, discussing rape culture leads to people dismissing the concept entirely because they, themselves, are not rapists. Yet both are criticisms of group dynamics, systems of power and identity politics, not of individuals or of all members of a class.
Individuals can differ in the way they respond to the influences of society, but its influence still exists. Speaking at the level of abstractions rather than individuals is important because those abstractions are what form people's concepts of normality, decency and justice, and because people act both as individuals and as conformist (or non-conformist) members of a group. Men who don't display toxic masculinity are still participants in the culture of masculinity, and men who don't rape are still participants in rape culture. Women participate in both as well.
Likewise, it's entirely possible to correctly claim that society puts hostile labels on LGBT groups, and for that not to apply to you personally. If so, that's fine, but not relevant, and there's no need to be defensive about the premise.
Not so much about leaving the country, as about knowing who from there is in your country. Most of the point of requiring a visa for entry (at this point in globalization when very few countries are ever actively at war) isn’t stopping people from entering, but rather knowing exactly who’s entering, and then being able to track them from the time they enter until the time they leave, if you feel the need to.
As well, when you don’t trust a foreign government to ensure that people only get passports for their own identity, you can’t be sure that a random person coming in with a passport from said country isn’t actually a Person of Interest. So, you require they fill out a passport-like form in your own country, and then try as best as you can to figure out if they are who their passport says they are. That’s a visa.
Sorry I have to disagree. I use DuckDuckGo for year by now and 60% of the time I add !g to my queries. It is slowly improving over time but not quite yet there.
> What could happen (but still unlikely) is that those within the company who made the decisions that led to the deaths of 300 people could be held to account in a court of law.
Sorry, I laughed. That will never happen. Boeing may go under, but those rich bastards will always be able to stay out of jail. Name me one exec of a plane manufacturing company that has gone to jail over a crash. There aren't any.
"Young people are growing less tolerant of LGBTQ individuals, ... , a survey released Monday shows."
Because the promotion and attention seeking is everywhere, people think it's everywhere. That's why we're starting to see it backfiring now. And, lots of parents just don't want that message broadcasted to their kids all the time, at least not until they're a certain age. Parents realize the whole 'having a weewee doesn't make you a boy' story can be extremely harmful to young children. And so they teach their children to ignore those influences when they encounter them. That starts to reflect now in polls and attitudes.
I bet on the LGBT community to start fighting even harder for tolerance again though, because the activists (who do all the speaking) seem to be quite incapable of self reflection and self examination.
As a gay person I don't see that at all. My sexuality has always been a major hot button such that as a boring, tech-obsessed geek who mostly keeps to himself my presence has been a major source of gossip in my home town, at school, at the places I have worked, and in the urban neighborhoods where I have lived.
As far as I can tell this is mostly related to the psychological mechanism of Altruistic Punishment. Calling someone out on their perceived flaws generates an immediate boost in social status and provides opportunities for bonding. Whether this is the mechanism or not, it is an undeniable fact that my being gay has been a major issue for me in essentially every social context.
When I march in Pride Parades or insist on equal insurance coverage at work this is not me promoting myself or my homosexuality at all. This is me attempting defend myself from the crushing an inescapable force of homophobia in this culture. If people would stop promoting their issues with homosexuality then none of this would be necessary. I am just a person with the same issues and needs as everyone else. It is rampant homophobia that does the most to promote homosexuality as an issue and subject for discussion.
> Calling someone out on their perceived flaws generates an immediate boost in social status and provides opportunities for bonding.
The important part here is 'perceived flaws'. The whole dynamic you're pointing at is one where people will virtue-signal and pretend to be "altruistic punishers", in order to abuse/bully someone that they hate for other, concealed reasons - often, this is an inflated sense of self-worth or status that the targeted person is threatening in some way. The abuse is just as likely to involve allegations of, e.g. homophobia as homosexuality! These things are simply immaterial to the deeper facts of what's going on. Most often, others will go along with the thinly-veiled bullying simply out of habit, or as a ploy to engage in their own signaling and raise their status in the surrounding community.
Yes, it's interesting that the overestimate seems to be occurring on both sides. If more people realized just how small the whole LGBTQQetc. minority is, attitudes around these issues would be a lot more relaxed.
How does the percentage of LGBT folks change whether I should have equal rights? How does the percentage of LGBT folks change whether I could be fired because my boss hates gay people?
"more relaxed"? What does that even mean? What is uptight exactly?
> How does the percentage of LGBT folks change whether I should have equal rights?
I'm not making this argument at all, but apparently some people are; they seem to be saying that we should be extremely careful not to underestimate LGBT percentages, or they might be mistakenly regarded as "too small" of a minority to have legitimate "rights".
Which strikes me as deeply weird, given that this whole range of notions of "rights", "agency" and so on and so forth are meant to apply to the individual first and foremost; who is, by definition, the smallest and most vulnerable - and, all too often, the most heavily oppressed minority of them all!
But noo, please for the love of money withhold the doctor that information, let him pay thousands of dollars for it, so that he will not read any of it, and let his patients suffer and die. Like they did when we were still doing bloodletting.