I see people claiming that something is without a doubt 100% certain and truth. Which is why I linked that speech.

there are plenty of scientists out there who know the limitations of what they know, and there are a few who are more certain than they should be. When measures are proposed from theories where the measures are likely to destroy some people's livelihoods,the amount of certainty people want can differ. Those who aren't likely to be adversely affected by the measures are the most likely to want to push forward. Those that will be adversely affected, want to be truly sure it is worth it.

wanting to protect the environment from people can be a nice goal, but people need resources. It doesn't matter if we become 30% more energy efficient across the board when the population doubles.

i think richard feynman put it best.

Most lead acid batteries don't like being discharged really quickly, ones designed for cold cranking amps tend to not like being too deeply run down either. Right now for sixty dollars I can purchase an 11.1v lithium polymer battery that can output well over 250 amps co tinuously and 500 amps in bursts that's on a four amp hour battery. Up the capacity and the maximum current can get crazy

Were the dissenting opinions from within the organisation though? I remember a piece written by one of the gay employees that said while the revelation of his donation was disappointing that he had always been reasonable and treated them no differently than anyone else.

from a bystanders point of view, it looked like just a lot of hate directed towards him, with no end in sight until there was some form of admission that he was an evil evil person.

What people consider harm can be pretty arbitrary though

Considering I don't see gay marriage activists advocating polygamy be accepted yeah, they aren't for equal rights. The only sensible thing that would treat everyone equally in regards to marriage would be to eliminate it as a government thing whatsoever.

treating people equally can be a silly goal though at times, I would not treat the prime minister of great Britain. The same as I would treat a six year old on a special needs bus. Like it or not people are different and sometimes those differences can matter to their suitability to a task or problem.

what people would probably agree more to is not using criteria irrelevant to a task, but that then devolves into what are the criteria and why is it important.

anyway the point I was trying to get across is equality as a blind goal is not necessarily a good thing.

bigotry ËbÉgÉ(TM)tri/ noun intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself It is kind of sad, how the people calling others bigots in a negative fashion are often being bigots themselves. The word is used far too often by left-leaning people in hypocritical ways.

The scary thing is you think that women have been powerless victims for millennia completely unable to have any effect on society or men until an eyeblink ago.

You must think women are pretty inferior to men to maintain that belief.. because how else would that situation have been maintained?

When it comes to people sense of agency, agents are capable of making decisions that affect the outcome of things, and things simply happen to objects.

To say that women are unable to have control over their situation (as you do when you paint them the victim) is to objectify them.

It is often in this way that feminists are the biggest objectifiers of women that I know.

And I think the majority of women back then (who were _not_ feminists) had a better idea.

Women weren't granted the vote until over 50% of the women _wanted_ the vote. To say that it was unfair before then is to say that those women who didn't want to vote were wrong, in which case you are telling women what they should want.

I actually did a rather lengthy post on that topic somewhere else in this thread.

You are looking at things through a great deal of distortion today. Women have always been favoured (see the women are wonderful effect which feminism uses to it's ends), but being favoured has had different sets of trade-offs at different periods.

Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

This also may take your interest, from the past.

Is the ability for a woman to put a man in jail effectively at her whim if he is not sufficiently wealthy not injust? Would you consider it a form of oppression, or not?

I can give modern examples, actually far worse ones for men where the women are literally holding the power to end their lives with impunity.

But I'm wondering what you consider oppression first.

Unrelated to the thread at hand, apologies I didn't see it earlier as this very much is the kind of thing I'd chime in on especially in regards to feminists very skewed ideas of history.

Would just like swing you something nice to read that may take your interest, shows how little some things have changed.

Very little to do with the site it comes from, it's well written. here

A small excerpt from towards the end of the piece:

What if they see "giving women what they say they want" as part of their interests?

Some interesting reading from the past (1907) here.

Do those laws and those results sound like they were made by men, to favour men? or perhaps by men to favour women?

People.. especially feminists, like to forget the details of the past, especially when it doesn't fit the very twisted portrayal they put forward of it.

and few would deny that it is mostly women who spend it.

To say that no man or group of men has ever been treated unjustly (oppressed) is a really hard sell man.

You don't think female privilege exists? you don't think they don't have entitlements that men do not also? Do you think it is all entirely mens fault across the board? bullshit.

To say that women have been powerless to men for thousands of years unable to have any effect upon mens wishes or politics I'd consider an argument that they are inferior. Good thing I don't think that. What they lacked in rights they made up for in entitlements.

When men were first granted the right to vote, it was conditional upon them signing up for potential military service (US here) and doing so at an age long prior to when they were allowed to vote. In world war one millions of men went to their deaths without being able to vote. In fact when the draft was challenged a court of law simply said

"It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force."

In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.

And yet a few short years later women were granted the vote, without those responsibilities, as soon as the number of women wanting the vote exceeded 50%. While only three years earlier men were being literally executed for not upholding their end of the bargain that they were unable to opt out of. For men gaining the right to vote was still a condition of their service, for women it was a freebie, no responsibility required.

Sure, women weren't allowed to make that bargain for a vote, but neither could men refuse it. Most of the women who were against women voting back then were against it because of the assumption they would be held to the same standard as males and be required to sign up for potential service.

Hell, during the war the suffragettes (women wanting to vote) took time off their campaigning to shame any man who was seen not in uniform to sign up to war. In one instance even compelling a 16 year old boy who was sent back from the trenches after being discovered how young he was to sign back up. Such is the power of women, they controlled what it was to be considered a man and through this power compel men to do their wishes in such a way that the power is deniable, to maintain an image of weakness.

When times are hard, rights tend to only be given to those that have responsibilities to others, so that they may fulfil them. Since allowing others to have rights they don't necessarily require can impede on those who do have those responsibilities.

What I see today tend to be people that want the rights without the responsibility and without losing the entitlements. Mischaracterizing the situation of the past such to tell a very one-sided story, in order to let the entitled have their cake and eat it too.

I used to think it was unfair that women weren't allowed to vote in the early 1900's, but after seeing the conditions placed under men to be able to vote, no wonder so many didn't actually want to, if it was assumed they would have the same responsibilities and lose their entitlements (which they did not).

Within practical limits and within the confines of what is safe, women are given what they want. Men have no automatic own group preference unlike women. Partly why the idea of men "holding all the power" is ridiculous when they are so easily influenced by the wishes women to the detriment of their fellow males.

Why hold the position of official political power with the responsibility that it entails, when you can simply influence the person in power without any of the responsibilities?

Do not underestimate the power that women have had throughout history, and still have.

Linus generally insults code and sometimes companies actions, he'll only curse at people when he knows them well and knows they are capable of far better. I think swearing at code is acceptable.

He is being portrayed without the original context in order to advance an image that he is some lumbering monster, and from your reaction it is working. It is not linus' fault if you can't see through the "oh, think of the children" style media manipulation for extra eyeballs.

Drama sells, news at 11.

If the people complaining about it all actually followed the lists and followed the technical and social problems encountered there and how they are dealt with, we wouldn't have half of this bickering.

As it stands it's mostly people out there looking for fault, and I don't expect linus or anyone else to try to censor themselves in such a way that there is no possible way out of context to be misconstrued as the bad guy (it's actually pretty hard).

Linus is a perfect example of a no-bullshit engineer, with great insight into the work processes both technical and social that go on behind the kernel.

With the media having so much sway, and nobody actually giving a shit to see how things are and how they work, I fear the "oh dear that poor persons feelings" mob have already won.. at least until they try and stay away from any software project where any kinds of standards were enforced on moral principle, in which case.. at least they won't be on the internet anymore.