patzerhacker

Bring back the "This Machine Kills Fascists" sticker for laptops as well!

Good for each of us now, but what of the people that were convicted on evidence found through parallel construction in the past that might not even be aware of it or able to prove it? What exactly can the courts do to help those people?

Debian GNU/Linux

>It's my belief that exposing crimes committed by the government, which is charged with both obeying the law and enforcing it, is the right thing to do.

I believe you should get automatic, blanket immunity for crimes that directly produce tangible evidence of government wrongdoing.

>Obama's constitutional law idealism may have been severely corrupted by the pressures of his current role, but it's still there.

Really? I have two words for you: Predator drones[1]. The sitting president of the United States, who has actually ordered drone strikes against American citizens who surely have Constitutional rights, joking about droning more American citizens. Whatever bit of constitutional law idealism was there was either an act or long since gone.

[1] https://youtu.be/WWKG6ZmgAX4

>I've switched to OSX but i still use Windows 10 on my other laptop and Windows 8.1 on my gaming PC and haven't had a bluescreen since Vista. I literally have never seen it for years.

I can reproducibly blue screen Windows 8.1 with the latest ATI drivers (as well as every driver for the last year and a half) by watching hardware accelerated Flash movies on an ATI HD 7770 GHz Edition. Swapping the card to a different ATI card fixes it. Swapping the card to an nVidia card fixes it. Swapping the 7770 GHz for another 7770 GHz does not fix it.

This only happens in Windows. It does not happen with the ATI drivers in Linux.

What you really want is a versioning file system.

>is it a historical account, therefore use their name/gender at the time of the event, or a retrospective where their name/current gender overrides that historical fact?

It seems to be that the current 'style' for this is to use their name as of now. See the reporting about Chelsea Manning.

For fuck's sake, the creator of M.U.L.E was Danielle Bunten. You'd think a site focused on video game history would do the research on this.

The last good version of uTorrent actually fails to run under Windows 8 64-bit for me.

In these comments I'm specifically addressing the currently "in" movement of having gender segregated events (but apparently only no-men events) as a way to paradoxically increase diversity, not of segregation as a systematic policy of dividing groups as a form of control as in the Jim Crow regime in the American South from Reconstruction through the Civil Rights era. Sorry if that was not clear.

>Have you ever felt unsuitable as a chess player because of your sex or skin tone?

No. I've never felt unsuitable as a chess player for any reason. I'm just not good at chess, but that's probably a function of not spending more of my time on it.

I have never seen myself as 'unsuitable' for any task due to who I am. Why would I? It's part of what makes exclusionary outreach programs infuriating to me. Yes, have a fund that tries to encourage engagement of an underrepresented crowd, but don't make it exclusionary to all others. Else the appearance (to me) is that you're saying that the only reason that the underrepresented group could ever make it is at the exclusion of all others.

>> Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you.

>Either you completely misunderstand the issue and/or this is a straw man.

It is neither me misunderstanding nor is it a strawman. For context, I'm responding to a post by @b0rk on medium that says, in part:

>If there are no men, nobody can get harassed by men. That’s it. That’s the entire hack. This has the unfortunate side effect of excluding all the delightful and wonderful men who would enrich an event. But it still makes people feel safer, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

>It has nothing to do with comfort. It is the case that, because of institutional discrimination, women have a much higher mountain to climb as it were, to achieve success in the tech field.

Except that this entire line of discussion does have to do with comfort...so I'm confused at to why you put it here (not that it's not worth discussing, mind you).

>I don't find a meaningful dose of negative discrimination in "dudes are welcomed with hugs and handpounds pretty much everywhere, let's make sure there's a place for women too."

Since things are the way that they are its wonderful that you feel that way. Personally, it smacks as a bit sexist for organizations to say to me 'we created this program to get women into things' because it reads to me like them saying "we created this program to get women into things because they can't hack it any way else". That's how minority outreach programs read to me as a woman of color.

>I respect your stance and your viewpoint, but I think you're worrying about folks who don't need much worrying done on their behalf.

If you've read my posts as "but what about the menz?!" (as I hear often) then I'm afraid that it looks like you're being reductionist. My position on this issue is both a combination of my lived experience having never felt discrimination in the tech community while simultaneously watching several of my equally qualified colleagues be denied opportunity through no fault of their own because somebody thought I deserved a better shot so their percentages looked better.

Institutional discrimination is a thing, but segregation (either voluntarily or by force) only makes that problem worse, not better.

One person's positive discrimination is another person's negative discrimination. Negative discrimination is seen by those its applied to as punishment. In their mind punishing someone for something that they had no hand in is a terrible technique to engineer a society and usually only leads to a backlash.

Further, it's easy to model what society should look like and how it should act by reducing it to mathematical models, but human behavior is not strictly dominated by mathematics.

>b0rk addresses this in the post above.

And makes a completely sexist hash of it. Just suggest that because there are some male hackers that are uncomfortable around women that there should be man-only events. Let me know how that goes for you.

>When there's nothing but boys doing something, many girls think to themselves, "this is not something a girl like me should be doing."

It's not just boys and men in the tech community, as anybody who would expend five seconds looking at the subject would see. We champion people like Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper.

>Btw, why do you consider yourself such a patzer? I do hope it has nothing to do with your gender or skin tone, and that it's just a harmless joke.

Do me a favor next time you want to make a comment like this - Google the term you're referring to. A patzer is somebody who lacks skill at chess. It's not a racist or sexist term. I just happen to be awful at chess (and much better at Go).

The position taken in that link is completely and utterly sexist, and here's why.

There are many in the hacker community with varying forms of social anxiety who are not comfortable around anybody of the opposite sex. Does that mean that segregation for the comfort of everybody is the solution, or the "hack" to get us to a better place? We'll never get to a better place if we exclude those things that make us uncomfortable. I dare you suggest a men-only hacker convention because women make some men feel uncomfortable. Let me know how that goes.

Before it's brought up, yes, we should exclude from our lives things that are dangerous, but just discomfort is a terrible reason to exclude something from your life.

Before I compose this reply I want to mention that I'm a woman of color in case anybody needs to do a privilege check to see if it's okay for me to speak on this issue or whether it's acceptable to silence me because I'm "obviously" a white cis het male.

>The gender inequality is already staggering in favour of boys.

Serious question: Do you think this is a conscious choice made by those in the tech field?

I ask because my lived experience is different than that, and yes, it's a serious question even though my response may have been flippant above.

>Having a tiny programme with 40 students allowed instead of the hundreds (thousands?) of GSoC does not mean that the horrible women are out to destroy all manhood.

That's not what I said at all. I'm asking why champions of gender equality seem to favor the tactic of exclusion.

>I think we might do it through the Outreach Programme for Women.

Because nothing says "I'm for gender equality" quite like a "boys not allowed!" sign.

I find it disconcerting that many self-identifying 'liberal' groups advocate for the anti-liberal restrictions of speech codes. If you are not for free expression, everybody's, not just the ones you agree with or approve of, then you do not hold liberal views and are not a liberal.

>There's a group of parents who try to cure their children's autism by making them drink diluted chlorine bleach and giving them enemas of the same stuff.

That's a crime. Full stop. Those parents should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.

>They get their advice from a couple who make money from the sale of books, supplements and services related to this horribly misguided and abusive practice. Would it be wrong to try to silence the perpetrators?

YES IT WOULD! (I wish I could make this larger, bold, blinking, and shouting.) Writing that one should do something stupid and dangerous is not a crime, otherwise half of the clickbait articles on the web would result in jail time for the posters.

Thoughts, in and of themselves, don't MAKE people do anything. The person hearing them always has a choice.

Now if you want to make it illegal to SELL their supplies because they're a risk to public health then go right ahead. A restriction on commerce is not a restriction on speech. We criminalize representing oneself as a doctor if you're not. What you're not allowed to do is shut someone up if you don't like what they're saying.

>Conservatives aren't an underrepresented or disempowered group (the relevant sense of "minority"), even on the net.

Regardless, silencing or demonizing any group is wrong.

Those making claims are required to produce the evidence for their claims.

Nobody is ever required to prove a negative. That's not how logic works.

>just following orders so to speak

I say we give them their just deserts - hang 'em high and let them be a message to any other collaborators that this sort of shit is not tolerated in a civilized society.

My point is that the following statement made further upthread is fundamentally incorrect as an assessment of systemd:

>systemd is a package of separable utilities, plus an init system. Much like the GNU core utilities.

The response was:

>So, how does one completely excise journald from a box running systemd. I'm not talking about passing messages through, I'm talking about complete, utter, wiping out?

The point is that if the utilities are truly separable from the init system (as was claimed by the first point as an indication that the person they were responding to didn't "get" systemd) then that would be simple. Note the person responding is responding to the assertion that they fundamentally misunderstand systemd. Their point is to show that they do not.

Your first response adds nothing to the conversation:

>If you want text logs, configure journald to pass things into rsyslog or whatever other logging subsystem you prefer (there are many).

Good point, except that's not what the person you're responding to asked for.

My observation is that systemd isn't just "an init system with separable utilities" that was originally claimed. You seem to agree with me.

Your last point, however, would have been helpful above:

> Anyone could implement their own journaling subsystem against the api and it would work... it doesn't have to be journald.

That would have answered the actual question asked.

So systemd is not a system of separable utilities then. Remove journald and systemd doesn't work.

There is a huge lag between keypress and audio on Safari under Yosemite.

I work for a company that deals with public records data in Florida. The "Government in the Sunshine" laws[1] that deal with access to public records are clear:

>"E-mail" messages made or received by agency employees in connection with official business are public records and subject to disclosure in the absence of an exemption.

and

>Section 668.6076, F.S., requires that any agency as defined in s. 119.011(1), F.S., or legislative entity that operates a website and uses electronic mail must post the following statement in a conspicuous location on its website:

>Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records.

>If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

That said, there is an exemption for social security numbers, but just because something is exempt doesn't mean that it must be withheld. The body holding the requested data generally has discretion:

>Social security numbers included in an official record may be made available as part of the official records available for public inspection and copying unless redaction is requested by the holder of such number or the holder’s attorney or legal guardian; however, if such record is in electronic format, on or after January 1, 2011, the county recorder must use his or her best effort to keep the social security number confidential and exempt as provided for in s. 119.071(5)(a), F.S. Section 119.0714(3)(b), F.S.

[1] http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/manual/5a60474cbfb8dbf48...

Every time I see the phrase "make the world a better place", my brain automatically adds "for me" at the end of it. It tends to enhance the truth of the statement.