When you are about to have an economic crash groups like Occupy and the Tea Party are an inevitability, whatever the names or politcal leaning may be. When you are about to have an economic crash the powers that be prepare to suppress revolt and domestic spying is job one. Militarizing the police is job two.
During the Great Depression Fascism was where economically desperate people turned as they are doing in Greece today.
Note the date, 2008, not 2002. Approximately the time financial markets started crashing and the Occupy and Tea Party movements started building. Ya think the U.S. government was more worried about Islamic terrorists or ordinary Americans who would soon be fed up with massive corruption in D.C. and Wall Street. Were they trying to prevent another 9/11 or building the capacity to suppress the backlash when millions of ordinary people would soon be thrown out of their jobs and homes, while Wall Street would get massively bailed out, and return to business as usual, getting rich.
The U.S. did a spectacularly good job of crushing Occupy. Did they use domestic spying to do it.
War is when your government tells you who the enemy is, revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.
Windows Server and Windows Desktop don't use the same OS? What definition of Operating System are you using here?
They have the same system libraries. They have the same kernel, albeit optimized and configured differently. They support the same APIs, run the same applications, use the same drivers, support the authentication engine, support the same UIs and shells, and use the same package delivery systems. There are differences, but I've yet to see any technical reason why you couldn't turn a Server edition into a Desktop release or vice versa.
As a counterpoint, the Ford Mondeo (4-door/5-door midsized vehicle) uses the same platform as a Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. They have the same frame, many of the same components, and otherwise take advantage of factory line construction and economies of scale. However, in this case, you could at least argue that they have different 'Operating Systems' -- they have some differences which are arguably just optimizations and tuning changes (handling characteristics, consoles, etc.) but others that are physical differences (Seats, load/capacity, etc.). You don't see Ford running out to split the Platform, though. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. There are more things in common at the core than are different, and they can make more products at a lower cost by sharing the core of the car platform. Ford has a dozen or so active car platforms, used by different models across their various brands; most other car makers do similarly.
The author is making one of several possible basic errors.
1) They don't really understand the definition of a Linux distribution (e.g. RHEL v CentOS v TurnKey v XUbuntu v Arch v etc.)
2) They don't really understand the differences between Windows Server and Windows Desktop
3) They don't really understand the definitions of the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, and the Linux OS
4) They don't really have a grasp of how software is made or how source code is shared
5) They weren't loved enough as a child and are desperately seeking attention.
This is like saying we need to create different compilers for AMD and Intel chips, as they have different architectures. It lacks understanding of the problem and understanding of how to address a solution.
The Eastern half of Colorado is in the Great Plains so it is valid to call that part of the state the Midwest. Denver sits on the West edge of the Great Plains. Everything west of Denver is the Rocky Mountains.
Although it's a little sad that in this case an AC is setting the standard that so many of the pseudonym users ought to be aspiring to.
Saying "I don't like people who are enthusiastic about rape threats" doesn't sound paranoid. However if a bunch of people started going on about the "RTEs" and questioning what the RTEs were responsible for and if the RTEs had submitted this slashdot article, etc. Well, that would sound both stupid and a little paranoid.
I have heard people complain about the War on Drugs many times (and i often agree with those criticisms.) However i can't ever recall anyone complaining about the "WoD". Certainly not for the first reference to the name in any case. In contrast i've seen "SJW" used dozens or scores of times, but can't recall "Social Justice Warrior" being used at all except on the rare occasion to explain what SJW actually stands for. (Notably in your explanation above you just assumed everyone already knew what SJW stood for when you explained the derivation.)
So to get back to the original comment that prompted the question in this thread, why is it:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and SJWs."
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and social justice warriors."?
or to use your own definition, why not just:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and militant misandric idiots."?
To me, #1 sounds stupid, #2 sounds a little hokey but okay, and #3 sounds perfectly reasonable (given the viewpoint of the person supposedly saying it.) I would certainly have gone with "militant misandric idiots" myself but would be boggled by the idea if anyone suggested abbreviating it to "MMI".
(I was originally going to suggest "militant misandric assholes" as an alternative, but then realized that if you tried to abbreviate that everyone would think you were talking about martial arts. Although perhaps choosing a term that can't be acronym-ized without confusion would be a good way to help prevent that from happening.)
The "or all" part is because it's possible that the set of people that are, in general, included in the group "professional victims" is actually a subset of the group "SJWs". If that were the case my original question would still be correct, however since i don't know if that is the case or not the rewording is justified. Carry on.
#1: I never said that i've seen anyone on
#2: You specifically left out the bit immediately following the part you quoted, in which i clarified that i was not accusing anyone here "(and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW")".
#3: The part where you say that you do not take conversations on slashdot seriously (or at least that's my interpretation of your statement) and post here "only for fun": http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
So nice job troll, thanks for playing?
It's interesting that so far there have been over a half-dozen replies in this thread and there's been a lot of dodging the question (sometimes with insults thrown in, free of charge) but no actual attempt to explain why "SJW" seemed like a good idea at the time.
As for your knee, it sounds like you hurt it. I can say that in just six words because in this case i can say the first thing that comes to mind without sounding like i'm trying to insult you outright.
Even though i do mentally categorize everyone who thinks rape and death threats are cool into the same group (and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW") i don't feel the need to give them a name any more specific than "misogynist assholes." I don't understand the appeal of coming up with some fancy name with a three letter acronym and bandying it about all over the place. Honestly i'd think that anyone who felt compelled to do so would sound... well, a little crazy. So what's the appeal? (I'd think the people who keep going on about "MRA"s are crazy, except i had the impression the "MRA"s gave that name/acronym to themselves, which again, i don't understand the appeal.)
It sounds like the kind of thing my old paranoid-schizophrenic girlfriend would do when talking about "them", but i presume you are not mentally ill, so there must be some other reason for it. Is it some kind of bonding thing between people who feel threatened by others? Or do you believe that by creating the appearance of some kind of organized opposition that you will sway "neutral" parties toward your side? It just sounds dumb to me, but maybe i'm not the intended audience?
When the topic first came up on Slashdot a number of people seemed to think offering such incentives was a bad idea. Maybe the California legislature agreed with that reasoning, but if they've made any statements about why they did what they did i haven't heard about it.