I tend to generally get "pissy" about sudden changes in a contract I entered that inconveniences me. Bay you're into getting baited-and-switched, personally, I consider it abusive.
But hey, if you're the kind of person who enjoys being abused, I sure don't want to kinkshame anyone.
We managed to get rid of about 90% of the bots recently? Wow.
New Zealand.
It has by far the highest chance of not getting hit by a nuke and eventually survive.
Nuclear war is not about being right. It's about being left.
These countries lack either the delivery vehicle to threaten the US with nukes or their nuclear weapons arsenal is not able to overload the defense screen of the US, so why bother with them?
Who would believe them? Their word has demonstrably no value, their signature is worthless.
but worrying about men in a women's restroom just sounds like people are looking for a reason to "other" people and using that as an excuse.
Sometimes you can see through the cracks in the stalls, and that really worries some people.
And that's a fair concern. Of course, that's really just one of many reasons to use real doors instead of those craptastic panel abominations that are so common in U.S. restrooms. (Another good reason is that normal doors are more likely to still be on the hinges and have functioning locks after a decade or two, which was a big problem in my high school with those cubicle restroom doors.)
One very left-leaning university I know of solved the problem in a different way, by putting in plastic strips that sealed the gaps. That works, too.
Either way, it's nothing that can't be solved. You just have to convince the owners that it is important enough to solve it. It's still way easier than trying to guarantee that you can correctly determine everyone's biological sex just by looking at them.
Identification presents a barrier to certain classes of bad actors. Granted it doesn't present very much of a barrier if the borders are wide open and those bad guys can just walk across and claim asylum, blending in to the 2m+/year of people from the world over who've been doing it for the past couple of years.
You know why I'm an unapologetic conservative Republican? Even if the mean and nasty libertarians call me every name in the book?
Because on 9/11, I was a kid, and I was, like most of us, jolted out of my complacency and started paying attention. And the thing that caught my attention wasn't the security theater and the politicians posturing and getting Bill Maher canceled off of ABC.
The thing that caught my attention, before the first bombs dropped in Afghanistan, was the masked anti1f4 types (who the fuck knows what they called themselves) rioting in the streets about a non-existent police state. And the Republicans in power called bullshit on the street theater, but the Democrats in power started hemming and hawing about a hypothetical theocratic takeover enabled by a massive surveillance state.
Sans theater and hyperbole, there's almost certainly a valid point to be made about where a nominally open society under threat from without draws the line between false alarms against innocent men and false misses of actual bad actors.
But in the context of the street theater and the name-calling and the mindless repetition of terrorist slogans (sorry, am I talking about then or now?), the side that instinctively holds back on law and order because reasons is the side that's decidely more cripplingly unserious.
In the even wider context of that same party's popular two-term president having overseen a massive growth in the security apparatus and surveillance theater out of one side of hos mouth, while opining about how guys with names like "Barack Hussein" were finally getting to stick it to The Man, and that party looks not just unserious, but also disconnected from its own reality, nevermind our shared reality.
Facial recognition is a tool. It is not racist, sexist, percussionist, or pianist. It is a tool. The tool can be used appropriately or it can be used incorrectly. But it's not the tool that's the problem. Latching on to facial recognition, or even surveillance cameras, or whatever, as the one weird trick that enables a bad ism is the thing that makes me stop listening and assume the speaker is a retard who shouldn't be in charge of his own finances, let alone have influence over public policy.
LOL, I still load and use Audacious on EVERY system I have. And with the "Refugee" skin
It JUST WORKS. I don't want a database or "auto scanning" or anything else complicated and annoying. All my music is local and I point Audacious at it and use random and I am happy.
>"Back From the Dead: Amarok 3.0 Music Player Released "
It should stay dead. All of us moved over to Clementine when Amarok design went "stupid."
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
Tab Session Manager has the ability to automatically "remember" all tab sets that have been opened and edit/restore previous points in time. Although it can't sort.
Still, that person needs to understand the concept of bookmarks
You're getting soft. I'd have a far more interesting fate for them.
Very simple. Don't comply? Don't make international calls to my country. Which in turn means you're not gonna make any kind of business deals with anyone here.
As far as I know, Russia didn't even comment yet.
"Also, gender segregated toilets that are located in convenient, safe locations at school can protect girls from violence and assault. Women and girls are often vulnerable to harassment or violence when they must use shared toilets or are forced to go to the bathroom outside. In one survey of schoolgirls in South Africa, for example, more than 30% reported having been raped at school; often these incidences occurred in school toilets that were either shared or in unsafe, isolated locations. Such violence is a major deterrent to school attendance, not to mention a girl’s self-esteem and desire to learn."
There's a lot wrong with that, so it's hard to even know where to begin.
First, they're lumping together bad behavior in shared restrooms with bad behavior in "unsafe, isolated locations". The fact that unsafe, isolated locations even exist is solid evidence of inadequate staffing, so we can start from the assumption that these schools aren't otherwise safe to begin with. No bathroom policy will change those, and lumping them together disguises the signal that they're complaining about (women being abused in shared restrooms) with a giant pile of noise.
Second, it goes without saying that in a school situation, a shared restroom has to be monitored. Even if you didn't have people getting raped, you'd still have people sneaking in to have sex, smoke, drink, do drugs, and so on. The real problem is not the shared nature of the restroom, but rather the lack of monitoring.
Also, you can bet that there are incidents in those same schools where people have been beaten up in the restroom, but nobody is complaining about those, because that doesn't give them an easily defined group of people to hate. Yet the same fix — proper staff supervision — would fix both problems, whereas a non-shared restroom only fixes one of those problems, and potentially doubles the number of staff needed to fix the other one.
Finally, the "or are forced to go to the bathroom outside" part is the point where most rational people would simply write off the entire argument as nonsensical in the context of any rational discussion of the United States unless you go back a hundred years or more.
If you lump in enough unrelated signals, you can absolutely create something that *looks* like a signal. I can do that, too. In Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and San Francisco, people with hunting rifles kill [insert number of people] every year. Therefore, we need to ban hunting rifles in San Francisco. See how absurd that sounds when it is used to defend something the left would be more likely to support? It sounds just as stupid coming from the right.
To program is to be.
