Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re: Unbelievable (Score 1) 592

Really? So you find nothing wrong with Paul telling slaves that if they can't win their freedom, they should be content? Nonsense - owning someone is not an expression of love or kindness.

To look down on someone living as gay is in conflict w/His teachings. Two entirely different things. Someone behaving gay cannot be a Christian anymore than a murderer or rapist can. However if they repent

Then there are a lot of non-christian priests and pastors and deacons out there. Also, where do you draw the line beyond which someone "cannot be a Christian?" If you don't allow minor sins, nobody can be a christian, because nobody can even know all the little sins they commit.

So where are you going to put transsexuals like me? Who, if anyone, would I be allowed to marry without "sinning?" Remember, "the Word" is silent on this topic.

Comment Re: The latest version as well? (Score 1) 57

I have no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, drag queens, whatever - except that their attitude towards us is like a useless appendage - handy to drag out when it gains "the community" something, but otherwise ignored, or worse, blurring the line between cross-dressers, etc., and transsexuals, helping perpetuate the myth that transsexuals are really gay men in dresses.

Toxic? You betcha! "Chuck you Farley Brown! I don't need you to tell me what I am or how to live my life" is probably a pretty muted response.

Comment Re: The latest version as well? (Score 1) 57

Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals are about sexual practices. Transgendered is a bastardized term that includes cross-dressers and drag queens, which is a sexual fetish (not that I'm criticizing this, to each their own, etc). Unfortunately, even in the LGBT, many people think that transsexuals are really just gay cross-dressers. This attitude comes from the top down, as many of the influential LGBT organizations are directed exclusively by gay white men.

They don't get that transsexuals are different - live brain scans have proven that our brains resemble our target gender both in sexually dimorphic areas, and in the overall networking. Even the general public is often more enlightened ,,, sheesh! When they argue that they've helped transsexuals by having drag queens on their floats, it's way past time to take them seriously.

Not that I ever had contact with any LGBT groups - didn't need to deal with their crap in addition to my own :-) But I see others buying into the whole "you need to let us keep you safe in our gay ghetto because it's a safe space where we all can live authentic lives" bullcrap. Sure, I've known a few gays and lesbians, but that doesn't mean that I need their weird brand of withdraw-from-the-world protection - I leave that to the cults.

We achieved social acceptance long before gays came out of the closet - Christine Jorgensen is a good example of early fame and fortune. We got this reception because the vast majority of people are curious. It was only when the gay rights movement came out and started rioting that we got caught in the back-splash of religious intolerance. So, in a way, they've been riding our coat-tails to a certain extent. After all, we could marry in our target gender without enabling legislation, they couldn't.

The worst part is, if you say any of this, "you're harming the community." My message to them is "You're not my community. My community is family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances ... without respect to color, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, physical or mental illness, etc ...." Rather than hiding in a gay ghetto because I need protection to live an authentic life (btw - how the heck do you live an authentic life when you're so paranoid about the rest of the world???) I help shape the world around me to be my "safe space" - for everyone.

I also don't like the bogus "self-affirming" games that transsexuals in the LGBT movement play ... the latest one was "this year we should all wear purple to mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance." A pretty safe thing to do because nobody outside their little group even knows what it signifies ... and if it ever gets to the point where people do, will they be pressured to out themselves by cooperating? This is slacktivism. Why not wear a T-shirt that says "Yes, I am a transsexual. Any questions for me?" and a big smiley face to invite discussion. I'd wear it to the mall ... but them? "Oh noes!" "Too dangerous!" They wouldn't dare take any action to pay it forward in memory of those who fought for our rights before us. No wonder they feel they have to hide in the gay ghetto to have their "safe spaces" and lead their circumscribed "authentic lives." Deep down, they are ashamed.

Stockholm Syndrome is what it is.

Comment Re:GPL enforcement? I don't want to be involved! (Score 1) 43

If you create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licenced software AND DISTRIBUTE IT, the derivative is not as free as the original. Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original. They dont have the ability to modify the original parts of the derivative once its binary only.

And be honest with yourself, if you create a closed source derivative of BSD licensed software would you be doing it mostly for the benefit of yourself or for others ?

Absolute freedom is a fantasy, absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them), once that happens freedom is no longer absolute.

The distributed binary is just as free as the original binary. And they DO have the EXACT SAME freedom I have - to develop their own derivative from the same source I used. Not my problem if they don't have the talent - they can always hire someone else to do it. What they don't have is the right to tell me what I have to do.

If I create a closed-source bsd-licensed derivative, OR my own completely original or derivative BSD-licensed code, that is MY choice. The people who have hired me to work on software, either as an employee or as a contractor, didn't give out the source code, and that is why they could afford to pay me. Same with almost everyone who works in the software biz. Open source is not a obligatory, nor is it desirable in many cases (like when you want to eat).

However, closed source does NOT limit other people's freedoms - they are, as I pointed out, free to use the same original source to make their own derivative. And they're free to release the source or not when they distribute binaries, as they wish, unlike the GPL.

There is nothing preventing users of the derivative to develop their own version using their own skills to create their own derivative from the same source I use, so users have the same freedoms I have. If they don't have the skills, sucks to be them but I don't owe it to them to give them my source. They have other options, such as paying someone else to develop their own derivative.

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 244

There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."

I don't see anything being done retroactively. They are merely changing the code for displaying user names going forward. Without a time machine they cannot retroactively change the HTML generated in the past. But effective immediately, the database field user names will be pulled from for display purposed will change from User.Alias to User.FullName. Nothing retroactive about it, from a legal stance that it (although IANAL). From a moral stance, it is more murky.

Modern content management systems store comments, etc, in a database and dynamically change the page as the data changes. Example - change your sig, and then go look at your old posts - they will all have the new sig.

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 244

Ethics, schmethics! The lesson to learn is to never give out your real name, use prepaid cards and throw-away email, and if they snoop your IP, use a proxy.

Sure, but some of us would rather give them the opportunity to do something dickish and then hold their feet to the fire - otherwise, it will just continue and eventually become "best practices" and "industry standard" :-)

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 244

"They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts."

Did you read the terms? I didn't -- never signed up for that site. I have ready many terms of sites I have signed up for and virtually all of those include some line where they can change the terms in the future. Not saying they had that -- but you are talking as if you read the terms and know exactly what it says and are full of righteous indignation.

If you haven't read the terms, then you are full of something other than righteous indignation. I leave exactly what that is up to the reader's imagination.

They themselves are admitting that the previous terms allowed anonymous posting, and that this change will be made retroactively unless you tell them by the day after Christmas to delete all your comments. Or did you not even read the summary???

If anything, they should make the default, if any, be to remove all anonymous comments unless you give them permission to show your real name. Even though even that is stupider than just enacting the new policy going forward, and leaving comments posted under the previous policy the way they were.

Comment You forgot to note the other differences ... (Score 1) 15

Place your vote on the person you would most like to win.
Place your bet on the person you think most likely to win.

Two completely different questions, from where I sit, and kind of hard to conflate the two. One is about your preference for the outcome, the other about your prediction of the outcome.

Just sayin' :-)

Comment Re: Unbelievable (Score 1) 592

Eve the bible says Paul was human, and thus not perfect. Where Paul's teachings are not in congruence with Jesus, Paul is simply wrong. Paul's condemning gays, etc., is at odds with Jesus's command to love one another. Same as the whole book of the apocalypse, as well as some additions to the gospel record, are at odds.

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 21

Turkey likes having it three different ways. They like getting half-price oil from ISIS (so they are financially supporting ISIS), they like everyone bombing everyone in Syria (making them relatively stronger), and they like being able to hide behind NATO for a stupid excuse for shooting down a Russian bomber and getting away with it (makes them look big-n-tough domestically).

Those million refugees in Turkey have paid a total of $1.5 billion euros to get into Turkey. And now they complain that they're stuck with them and wants the EU to take them off their hands? What a joke.

In other words, Turkey only cares about Turkey, and by using NATO intelligence to ambush a Russian bomber, they have shown that they cannot be trusted by anyone.

It's the same thing with Saudi Arabia. The only reason they produced so much cheap oil that they flooded the market was to put the higher-cost alternatives out of production, because if the world doesn't need Saudi oil, then the world will perhaps actually be willing to take a closer look at the Saudi's human rights violations and put an economic embargo in place. That this delays taking action on climate change is just tough sh*t for the current and next generations.

Comment Re: Easy solution (Score 1) 471

They try to cheat our systems with technicalities, therefore why is it a problem to divert them when they technically didn't hit land? If you really wanted better lives for those people, you'd have taken them in yourself rather than expecting us to do so.

I've already stated elsewhere that I'm prepared to take in a refugee when Canada brings them over here. If I were in Oz, I would have already done so.

In 1750 Issac Newton became discouraged when he fell up a flight of stairs.