You're missing the point. I'm not trying to defend what the US has done here, nor am I trying to equate German political scandals with American ones -- and the fact that I can't find an equivalent German scandal says a lot of good things about Germany. But celebrating the failures of somebody else's country is pretty close to what the Germans call schaedenfreude, and what Americans call "a dick move". Let Americans put up their own Snowden statues.
Dear Germany: you get no points for putting up statues to controversial dissidents from other peoples' countries. You're clearly trying to make a bold political statement here, but to do that you need to take a stand against members of your own nation. Put up a statue to the folks who prosecuted the Christian Democratic Union's campaign donations scandal in 1999, or Kathrin Oertel, the leader of an anti-islamic nationalist group who recently resigned and recanted, and *then* you can pat yourselves on the back.
Registered Democrats in many areas of Florida in 2000 (and to a certain extent today) are Dixiecrats, not people to the left of the editorial columns in the Washington Post. They tend to vote Republican for everything except local politics. They may vote for a Democratic Senator, Congressman, or State Governor, but only if the candidate is a Dixiecrat too.
I'm not entirely sure why it's considered terrible by the average Slashdotter to ask someone, or a group of people, to stop being an asshole.
Surprisingly, with Chrome, if you enter your Google password in the Subject box of a new comment and then press the "Submit" button, the warning dialog comes up and your post won't get sent until you confirm it. Only discovered that because my Google password is (well, was) "systemd?".
Yeah I thought the summary's equation of "Protestors" and "Rioters" (headline uses the latter, main text the former, apparently referring to the same people - for the record, the number of protestors in Baltimore last week was some figure conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands; the number of rioters was less than 2,000 - probably much less, being made up largely of local gangs) was rather reflective of the kneejerk reaction against any politicial activity by "the masses" in this country.
The other day I mentioned the (thankfully debunked) neo-urban-legend about a nearby Florida sheriff saying it was OK to run over protestors if they get in your way to some people in the office. At least one was fully in favor, giving a whoop when he heard it.
I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.
Psychologists who collaborate with torturers are ethically complicit
Absolutely, which is obviously something you and I agree upon completely.
Boycotting the torturers is the only ethical stance here
If it is (and it isn't) then ethics be damned. The only moral stance is to do whatever is in your power to prevent torture from happening. Standing idly and refusing to intervene by is utterly reprehensible, even if it's an ethical one according to some code of ethics I'm unfamiliar with.
Well in fairness some modern operating system components that ship with Debian, such as recent GNOMEs, are transitioning (or have transitioned) to having systemd as a dependency. Yeah, you can "just not use GNOME", but over time more and more of the operating system will transition that way.
And it kinda ignores why systemd exists. Over time, I'd expect Debian to make itself more systemd dependent, as doing so allows Debian to introduce long awaited security and stability improvements by allowing it to transparently use cgroups and run unprivileged daemons that can listen to privileged ports, things that are not practical under sysvinit (though might be under Upstart.)
What I'd like to see is Hurd to introduce the functionality that systemd is reliant upon so it too can be ported.
Then if that were her reason, she'd be wrong.
The science is what the reviewer is supposed to review. Truth is that if it had happened the other way, this thread would consist entirely of people yelling "It's PC gone mad/SJWs suck/Feminists want to take away our computer games!"
For some reason, however, when a woman is shat upon for being a woman everyone's so eager to try to find excuses for the jerk who did it. I'm not seeing this as a positive trend.
Same thing happens with doctors and nurses, quite frankly.
Getting a degree requires much more persistence than competence. Nothing in what you said changes the truths of what the GP said.
I'm sorry that you remain stuck in a previous century.
I'm sorry you're stuck in the 18th Century.
Please reset your Apple Watch to the correct date. It's the 21st Century, the year is 2015.
Most PhD and Masters graduates are women nowadays. In many of the top research fields the majority of faculty are women.
Please be advised the culture shock may be severe. But you will get through it.
I'll bet the reviewers repeat ideas women in their committees say, as if they came up with the ideas themselves, too.
I know nothing about the relationship between the APA and the CIA/FBI/TSA/NSA/GOP here, so it may all be terrible. But: there are reasons to cooperate with a body that might misuse your work that do not involve encouraging them to misuse it. One example might be if the advise offered was on how to get answers out of someone without torturing them.
One community that would, presumably, be very good at the whole knowing how to "Get information out of people without torturing them" would be psychologists (well, at least 43% of the time
Yes, I may be wrong here. But the truth is I'd rather wait until this report is published, than leap to assumptions.