I think OP is using `public domain` in its old, Amiga-era definition, which is probably closest nowadays to freeware.

It would be a good analogy if you were talking about, say, a site which was targeted at - and largely read by - people interested in political issues.

It's perfectly reasonably to understand that the majority of Slashdot users either know what Clang/LLVM is, or are willing and capable of looking them up. Clearly, if you've not idea what Clang is, then you're going to skate on over the headline to the next stor, just like I did when I saw the headline about giving cyborgs rights.

A browser not trusting something that's not to be trusted is a positive thing. Yes, some old sites will suffer. That's how it's supposed to work. They'd better up their game. People expect security to be take more seriously these days, as there is more at stake and more muppets with a lot of time on their hands trying to attack you.

Never heard of him. Tech journalist? Slashdot employee? "First time submitter"? Proven track record of insightful commentary/accurate predictions?

Otherwise, why should I care?

> Now don't talk of Android because we know it's all fragmented.

Wow - people still say that in 2014? This is still a tech site, right? Windows has users on different sized monitors, and slightly different versions of Windows - I guess that's fragmented too.

Stupid name, looks like it was designed in the last com bubble, awful on mobile, no users, posts retarded crap about Indian takeaway deliveries.

There's scope for a rival to Slashdot, but that isn't it.

You don't have to use "repeat" in written text online because there's no chance anything is going to happen to the first instance of the text. It just wastes space and looks a little self important.

Absolutely. There are all sorts of reasons why a person lands in jail. Some are in their control, some aren't.

But, to tie this back to the original poster and to the various responses, is it entirely beyond the pale to even entertain the notion that, possibly, due to some combination of nature and nurture, of social upbringing, evolutionary selection, and everything else, that maybe, just maybe, women and men are different?

And that, for some things, those differences may prove to be helpful or harmful? Isn't it better to have the discussion, to figure out what the differences are, and in some cases, make allowances or adjustments for them?

Premise: Women in western society, for a variety of factors both social and biological, tend to be more collaborative than adversarial. Assertion: Wikipedia editing is an adversarial process, in the same way the US legal system is adversarial: people argue their positions with the intent that the best argument wins. Implication of assertion: many women, who prefer collaboration to adversarial systems, will avoid Wikipedia.

To me, that is in no way sexist, demeaning, or anything else negative. But many people, whom I would term 'overly PC,' would attack me for even putting that little paragraph together.

Faith is defined as 'belief without evidence.' In other words, and *at best*, one makes a knowledge claim without any supporting fact or evidence whatsoever.

The problem is, 'belief without evidence' rapidly tends to turn into 'belief *despite* evidence.' In other words, the same knowledge claim is often made *despite* clear and contradictory evidence. That's a hell of a way to run a railroad.

Well, given that the majority of incarcerated males in the US are black, it could be argued, just as was previously argued, that you are implicitly saying that black people have inherently inferior reasoning ability.

See how easy it is to twist things into isms?