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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Lol (Score 2) 239

by laie_techie (#49784741) Attached to: A Text Message Can Crash An iPhone and Force It To Reboot

It's not a special character that needs escaping. It's a character that needs multiple bytes to specify the code point. The parser just isn't handling the fact that you can't just crop a character mid code point - it's operating at the byte level when it should be operating at the code point level during a crop operation.

Too bad I don't have mod points because you are absolutely correct! As more and more code points are defined, the number of bytes needed to represent characters increases. Their abbreviation mechanism should at least recognize surrogate pairs and combining characters.

Comment: Re:if I am dead (Score 1) 182

by laie_techie (#49664635) Attached to: The Challenge of Web Hosting Once You're Dead

Two types of websites would be good after you die: The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works.

Put ownership in your will and credentials in a safe deposit box! If you make a substantial profit, you should probably register as a business and put a succession plan in place.

The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial.

I, too, believe in the afterlife, but I'm not sure I'd want an eternal website trying to convert people to my chosen faith. Most sects and denominations already have websites; maybe you could share your testimony on one of them (providing them permission to host your comments even after you die).

I run a website which I think should be perpetuated long after I leave this mortal existence, but it doesn't match either of your two categories. I host the largest genealogical sites for my surname. Indeed, I am contacted daily to verify information on other sites. I want those photos from the 1800s to be available a hundred years from now. I want my descendants to know why I believe a certain family story is false. I want to preserve family stories I have verified as true (including teaching a French princess English).

Comment: Re: Please, BCE/CE, not BC/AD (Score 2) 105

by laie_techie (#49538139) Attached to: Ancient Hangover Cure Discovered In Greek Texts

In Latin aCn (ante Christum natum) is written for BC; anno Domini is one Latin way of expressing what we mean by AD, but often I've seen it written as anno Salutis (in the year of Salvation), and there are countless variations. Sometimes, especially in texts referring to Greek and Hebrew affairs, you find a different system, aM or anno Mundi, but in general the aD system is so prevalent that variation is desirable (Latin loves variety), hence anno Salutis and its friends.

anno Mundi (year of the world) is used in the Jewish calendar. anno Domini translates to "year of the Lord". Much of the ancient world used a system of "the Xth year of the reign of Y"

Comment: Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 2) 700

by laie_techie (#49480273) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

With most religions they are more than willing to give me copies of their holy books some are quite persistent (look at you Mormons) so I don't think they would care about the copyright thing as they just want more people to have their stuff. Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.

The Book of Mormon was originally published in 1830, so the text is in the public domain. The current copyright covers things like the page layout, chapter headings, footnotes, and the study guides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protects its copyright holdings religiously. The Church wants to "flood the earth" with copies of the Book of Mormon, but wants to make sure that any Book of Mormon in circulation is accurate. We give a copy of the Book of Mormon to anyone who accepts a visit from our missionaries and promises to read from it. Missionaries assume most people they come in contact with are already Christian so don't give out copies of the Bible (in fact, missionaries need to obtain special permission to teach non-Christians).

Comment: Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 700

by laie_techie (#49479803) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

I have no issue with religion, as long as it stays in its place (outside of government) and we don't favor one over the other. I don't understand why any religion gets a tax exempt status, and I know people who operate "churches" of very dubious merit for the tax benefits. The notion seems dumb, let's can it. But perhaps there are good reasons that I don't understand.

My issue is that I don't really like playing favorites, If we can't universalize this to all religions, we shouldn't do it at all.

Tax exempt status is almost universal among religious organizations. Religions are generally not-for-profit and provide charitable services. My own sect pays taxes on its business holdings, but doesn't pay property tax on our places of worship. Some donations to the sect (such as tithing and donations to our humanitarian fund) are tax exempt, while others are not. I'm happy as long as everyone is treated equally (including the choice to not practice any religion).

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by laie_techie (#49465415) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

I am a heterosexual White male from the middle class. I am married and have an infant son.

Translation: "I won the lottery and ended up with a highly privileged status, yet somehow have managed to remain completely unaware of exactly how privileged I am."

Being in the middle class is considered winning a lottery or being in a highly privileged status? What planet do you live on? I earn too much to qualify for government assistance but so little that I'm living paycheck to paycheck. I can't even afford a single family residence, having to satisfy myself with a town home.

I was in a racial minority in elementary and high school (20% of my high school was White).

Translation: "I've been around a LOT of those brown people in my life, so I think that qualifies me as an expert on social policy with respect to managing the negro problem."

Another incorrect translation. I don't think there is even a Negro problem. The problem has to do with economic classes and cultural mentality, not race. My point was that I know what it's like being in a minority and being singled out because of my race. My point is that depending on where in the country you are, it might be Whites who are discriminated against instead of Blacks or Latinos.

My university was 51% White and had several public debates on how to get more minorities in student government

Translation: "I hope you'll ignore the fact that I haven't told you what proportion of the student government was white, and instead that you'll focus on the fact that I've claimed that fully 49% of the student body was brown at my college! Furthermore, I'll hope you don't ask me for any of the results of those public debates which probably found that there were systemic and social issues at my university that actively discouraged minorities from trying to participate in student government, and just let the domination of student government by white people continue by default. After all, it's not racist if the brown people chose not to participate in student government because they didn't have the time or resources to navigate the vast gauntlet of obstacles and hindrances the white people put in their way!"

Incorrect one more time. Asian does not equate to brown; Black doesn't equate to brown; not all Latinos are brown. You just set up straw man after straw man. You assume that Whites are to blame that so few Polynesians, Asians, and Latinos ran. You assume that it takes vast resources to run for a position in the student body government at a university. You assume there were obstacles which were designed to prevent non-Whites from running.

I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken.

Translation: "When I get drunk, I secretly worry about how the brown people are getting really uppity. And I tell all my white friends repeatedly that I'm not racist at all, so there's no need for Affirmative Action anymore."

How many straw men can you construct in a single post? Firstly, I abstain from alcohol. Secondly, most of my friends are Polynesian and not White. Thirdly, race hasn't ever been an issue between my friends and I. I only talk race when one group or another cries out that they deserve special privileges based solely on race.

I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination.

Translation: "I use Affirmative Action as a cornerstone of my justification for my racist behavior. And I make myself feel better about my racist behavior by reminding myself of all the really nice brown people I've known over the years, especially the ones who've given me great service in their dead-end minimum wage jobs."

Yet more wrong assumptions and straw men. I don't have racist behaviors nor thoughts. And you assume that more of my non-White friends ended up in dead-end minimum wage jobs than my White friends.

Best qualified is best qualified

Translation: "Best qualified is white middle class heterosexual males like me, but it's impolite to say it."

Wrong again.

whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.

Translation: "Black people love me, so I'm totally not racist. Look how diverse-minded I am - I'd even accept orange colored people at my company if they existed!"

It doesn't matter if Blacks love me or not; what counts is if I judge them based on race. If you believe that a Black needs special protection because of his race (eg. he can't succeed on his own merits), then YOU are the racist.

Here's the rub, chum: If you claim affirmative action is unnecessary, and merit is all that matters, then you are actively saying that the disproportionate representation of minorities means that somehow, by some mechanism, that minority is simply... incapable of producing the most meritorious candidates for the job. After all, if merit was all anybody considered, then we'd have a representative sampling of each minority in any given job, since minorities are equally capable of succeeding. Right?

WRONG. Not everyone desires any given job. Undocumented immigrants (I hate that term!) tend to do manual labor because those employers are less likely to verify the legality of their presence in the US.

Yet, disproportionate outcomes still happen in fact. There are two dimensions at play here: 1) Is the minority *capable* of producing the best candidates for a given job; 2) Is the minority *producing* the best candidates for a given job;

Your answer to #1 seems to be that, YES, of course minorities are capable of producing the best candidates for a given job. This leads to the second question, of whether or not a capable minority is, in fact, producing candidates who are "the best" for a given job.

So, if we say: - Yes, a minority is capable of producing the best candidates, and Yes, a minority *is* producing the best candidates: affirmative action is absolutely an effective solution to the disproportionate representation in this scenario. The candidates are out there, and you have an affirmative duty to go find them.

Correlation does not equal causation.

- Yes, a minority is capable of producing the best candidates, and NO, a minority is NOT producing the best candidates: affirmative action may also be helpful here, because it's likely that a minority is suffering from some sort of disadvantaged status in terms of education, funding, opportunity, and affirmative action applied to the allocation of education, funding, and opportunities will help them produce their fair share of "best candidates."

This only holds with a victim mentality.

- No, a minority is incapable of producing the best candidates, then the answer to #2 can only be NO, they are not producing the best candidates. In this case, affirmative action is useless, because you will ONLY be selecting inferior candidates and there is never any hope that the situation will improve. And in this case, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate exactly why and how a minority is genetically disadvantages in such a way that they will never produce the best candidates.

So... affirmative action is useless. When can we expect to see your proof explaining exactly why and how minorities are genetically inferior to white people and should stop expecting to enjoy the same privileges white people do, since they're naturally incapable of rising to our highly-meritorious level?

More straw men, and completely opposite of my views. Never have I even hinted that "minorities are genetically inferior".

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by laie_techie (#49448213) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.

There is no such thing as "reverse racism":

The term reverse racism may not be in common usage, but it does exist. In this case, in order to undo racism from 50+ years ago against Blacks, Affirmative Action institutionalizes racism against Whites. It does not abolish racism, just changes which race is discriminated against.

I guess "best qualified" is why Whites dominate in the CEO suite: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/diversity_among_ceos.html

Correlation does not equal causation. More men are CEOs because more men have more time in the workforce and generally have higher education. Women traditionally take time off from their studies and careers to help raise the kids. My own mother earned her Associate's when she was 40, after raising seven kids.

You must run before you can get elected. The student body at my university was also overwhelmingly male (though extremely racially diverse). After studying the situation, it was determined that a female who was running was three times as likely to get elected as a male also in the running. Alas, the general population votes, so there is not single thing that everyone agrees on for what is "best qualified". I was called a sexist for not supporting Hillary Clinton and a racist for not supporting Barak Obama. When I vote, I vote for who's best (IMO) for the country, and not out of fear being called a bigot. I voted for a Black female for a different position, but it's because I agreed with her message. It was only years after the election that I learned of her religious background.

It also must be why there has not been a noticeable rise in minorities in the Forbes 400 Richest Americans list: http://gawker.com/5645917/the-forbes-400-a-demographic-breakdown

This is more about economic classes than races. Most lower and middle class individuals are not in a financial position to take the kind of gambles which can pay out the biggest dividends. It takes a million dollars to start a business. Those of us in the middle and lower classes look like too big a risk for banks to lend that money. Also note that 31% of those 400 come from old money.

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by laie_techie (#49440961) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

I have traced my family history back hundreds of years. Not a single ancestor within the past three hundred years owned a slave.

Also are you sure that NOBODY In your family owned slaves? Let's see, 300 years is 10 generations, going back to the mid-Seventeenth century. That is 2046 possible ancestors going back "to around the time of the English Civil War and to the early days of British settlement in North America":

I actually do have detailed records for all my direct ancestors going back into the 1600s. Half of my lines arrived on the Mayflower (yes, there are intermarriages). A few others arrived in the 1770s to help free the colonies from English rule. Some arrived in the 1840s 1850s from countries which did not have slavery. All my ancestors lived in the northern colonies which did not practice slavery. For what it's worth, if I limit my family history to just 300 years, I have ancestors from the following countries: Native Americans, England, Scotland, and Sweden. If you add another 100 years you get the general European blend.

I refuse to be punished for the acts committed by individuals over 100 years ago, especially as those acts were not committed by my ancestors.

Meanwhile you take advantage of the system of White privilege that the slave-holding families built, so you are indirectly benefiting from slavery in spite of your dubious claim your family NEVER owned slaves. Must be nice to be White in the US.

I'm sorry but the system of White privilege in the US is a myth.

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by laie_techie (#49418469) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

If everything else was equal, you'd be right. However, you're completely discounting the advantages that you (or I) were given simply by the circumstances of our birth. Two centuries of official and unofficial repression mean that black families distinctly worse off in financial terms, and unable to provide the same advantages their children that we received. While some can overcome this, it's certainly not a level playing field if we just "left everything alone."

I'm sorry, but I wasn't born into special circumstances or advantages. My father was unemployed for several years. We lived in poverty most of my childhood. Everything I owned was previously used by my older siblings. The one advantage I had was that my family placed a lot of value on education (my father taught at the university, 3 grandparents taught at high school, 6 great grandparents taught at high school, etc). I had to work to pay for my education. We received reduced lunch during elementary and high school. I didn't own a car until I was 25.

Before you say that being born White is an advantage, I'd like to remind you what I've posted elsewhere. My elementary school was 25% White. 20% of my high school was White. Whites got beat up just for being White. I had friends who had to be snuck off island to escape race based death threats. I quickly learned to play hooky on "Kill Haole Day".

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 1) 587

by laie_techie (#49418383) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

I have traced my family history back hundreds of years. Not a single ancestor within the past three hundred years owned a slave. A few were household servants in Europe, while others were nobles. I don't know anyone who was born into slavery in the US, or whose parents were born into slavery in the US, or whose grandparents were born into slavery in the US. How many generations should be entitled to remuneration for the atrocity of slavery? A Black woman is no more entitled to a free ride than I am. I refuse to be punished for the acts committed by individuals over 100 years ago, especially as those acts were not committed by my ancestors.

The real problem is economic slavery which is not limited by race nor ethnicity. People of all races need access to education or training so they can get better paying jobs and break the cycle. The answer is not to punish White males who excel at a job. Quotas don't solve the real issue either. Obviously enforce anti-discrimination laws.

Comment: Re: Oh, Okay (Score 3, Insightful) 587

by laie_techie (#49414729) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

Not necessarily. They're only worthless if non whites or non males win apparently.

First a disclaimer. I am a heterosexual White male from the middle class. I am married and have an infant son. I was in a racial minority in elementary and high school (20% of my high school was White). My university was 51% White and had several public debates on how to get more minorities in student government (conclusion: people who don't run for office don't get elected!).

I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.

Comment: Re:I got a butt chewing for giving my daughter hon (Score 1) 243

by laie_techie (#49131995) Attached to: Study: Peanut Consumption In Infancy Helps Prevent Peanut Allergy

Doctors bad-mouth cow's milk because a bunch of vegan pussies with their hippie propaganda have convinced a gullible bunch of half-a-fag pediatricians that dairy is THE EVIL. All it's going to get you is a bunch of lactose-intolerant pussy kids to match their pussy parents. And the sad thing is that they're not even going to have lunch money to buy their gay soy milk because my kid is going to be beating them up and taking it from them.

Actually, your argument may be valid for human consumption of bovine milk, but there are valid reasons for infants to avoid it. Cow milk has larger protein structures which are harder for human infants to digest than human milk. Cow milk has the wrong kind of fats for human infants. Not to mention that human infants need MORE fat than what cow milk provides. When infants are introduced to cow milk (about 12 months old), it should be whole milk. Children shouldn't drink 1% or skim milk until they are 2 years old.

As for soy milk, too much soy messes with male hormones.

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Working...