codeguro

That’s it, I’m reporting this to the FSF, and the copyright holders to libgcrypt and Praat.

This is exactly what the GPL license was made for!

Now we're going in full circle, so I'll just point you to the parent thread:

> One must understand that E2EE is used when you don't trust your service provider to handle your data. In other words, the adversary in your threat model is the service provider - and in this case, Apple. And what good is that encryption, if Apple obviously can do almost anything with your device?

Insulting, whether at an individual or at a group, is a lowly, immoral act in of itself despite one being slightly better than the other.

> by god, this is not how you build a consensus or a high functioning team

I beg to differ. Linus Torvalds is an example for us all, and I’d argue he has one of the most, if not the most, highly functioning open source teams in the world. The beauty in open source is you’re not stuck with the people you do not want to work with. You can “pick” your “boss”. Plus, different people communicate differently. Linus is abrasive. That is Okay because it works for him. What is not okay is having other people policing the tone in a conversation. Linus had this same conversation with Sarah Sharp, I’ll post the relevant quote below:

Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm also not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.

> Due to IP reasons, this can't ship as code, so we need to ship binaries.

Good, it should be as difficult as possible, if not illegal, to ship proprietary crap to Linux. The operating system was always intended to be Free Software. If I cannot audit the code, it’s spyware crap and doesn’t belong in the Linux world anyway.

A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food? A well balanced breakfast or the people?

> For anyone who honestly feels this way, it would seem that the most obvious next step is to enact very strong laws that prevent that now-born perfectly viable human child from being murdered at school. I can respect such a consistent position.

I'm pretty sure there are already pretty strong laws against violence in schools, let alone murder. I think what you're insinuating on are gun laws? Well, sure. I think that every teacher should be armed and trained in the event of a school shooter because they have the responsibility to protect those children.

>"No, not like that!"

Haha. We tried it your way. Turns out criminals don't respect laws. Most gun deaths occur in gun-free zones. But those cities that are most armed also tend to be most polite and least violent. Think carefully about why that is.

> I've yet to meet anyone who takes this "pro-life" position a single moment beyond birth though. Why is that?

Again, pretty strong laws on the books against murder. I think what you're insinuating here is why aren't there government programs to raise children? Well, it's quite simple. The murdering of children is a completely separate issue. One dwells on preventing murder, and the other hinges on who's responsibility it is to raise it. I think it should be illegal to kill the homeless. To have you then turn around on me and tell me I'm obligated to take care of that homeless man is disingenuous. These are two, completely separate issues. I think that in general children are obligated to be taken care of by their parents, and I'm pretty sure we have laws on the books for that too. So, what's your issue with conservatives, really?

Name one civilization raises primates to be eaten like cattle.

You have some serious reading comprehension problems. He asked if it was murder, not "if it was under legal threat". And I never said it was bad. It attempts to conceive children not kill children, that's why it's silly. Can you strawman any harder?

> You define "child" based on a religious definition. That's /your/ religion, not mine. Feel free to follow it all you want, you don't need to involve the rest of us. We're not talking about children, we're talking about fetuses.

Fetuses are unborn children. I realize this definition is rather inconvenient to your fragile narrative, but it is THE definition, not just my definition. Please refer to the dictionary, #4: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/child

> a human fetus

Or the Merriam webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

> 3a : an unborn or recently born person

or the oxford dictionary: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

> a young human who is not yet an adult

Please, keep talking. I am enjoying this. Next you'll argue categorical definitions and facts are a religion.

I think both types of children should be protected. Can't you read?

> In fact isn’t viability one if the leading pro-choice indicators of morality in abortion?

No. That's a tactical argument. The leading, fundamental argument from morality is the value of human life. That's probably why many laws don't make exceptions on health. And as a pro-choicer, I kind of agree. I think there's an argument to be made that viability shouldn't even be a factor.

>Plan B blocks fertilization.

It can also block implantation. From the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information... I don't personally hold strong opinions on Plan B. I think it should be frowned on because it could kill a conceived child, but I don't think it's as egregious as abortion.

> Do you think women that have been raped and conceive children as a result should be responsible for raising those children?

I think it's a nuanced issue; it's less than 1% of all abortion cases, and any policies crafted on this should be the exception and not the rule. People often want to take this particular marginal case to craft a rule to apply to the non-rape and incest cases.

But to answer your question directly, yes. I think the value of human life is contingent on someone's humanity, not on the circumstances surrounding their birth. Let me explain further. I know someone who was born of a rape and incest. She is an adult now and works as a nurse. To say that her life is somehow less valuable than her co-worker's is, I think, completely antithetical to the idea that all men and women are created equal. I think that being raped is traumatic. I don't think that the solution to that trauma is more trauma by means of abortion. I asked her, and her mother is happy she had her in the end. Having her was the only thing to help her cope. I realize not every woman is like her mother, so I also think that it's understandable if a mother chooses to bring her baby conceived of rape or incest up for adoption.

Name one civilization raises primates to be eaten like cattle.

> One of the legislative initiatives that has been undertaken by several states is a statute creating a trigger ban on abortion, wherein the Supreme Court striking down Roe would immediately result in an automatic complete abortion ban statewide.

Good. I think that laws that serve to protect defenseless children should be upheld. I do think that IVF should be reconsidered, but it appears that the intent of the law is to prevent children from dying, not to prevent couples who have trouble conceiving, from conceiving because of complications that may arise. I think those two are separate issues with different outcomes. I think a child that is failed to be conceived or dies during the process of being conceived is a fundamentally different issue to a procedure who's express and deliberate purpose is to end the life of the child.

> Is IVF murder of children? Is a twin that consumed a twin in-utero a killer? Should we launch a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage?

(1) That's a silly question. In-virtro fertilization is a series of procedures to help conceive a child. (2) Intent is often the focal point of Criminal Law and is generally shown by circumstantial evidence such as the acts or knowledge of the defendant. And so is ability; an unborn child has no intent or knowledge or ability to resist, so I'd argue no that it's not murder for a twin to consume her sibling in utero. Got any more "hardballs" for me, or are those the best you got?

> Is plan B murder of children? If yes, is contraception, including pulling out murder of children?

If a child was conceived, yes. Take a child that is in utero and the mother is 1 day away from delivery and takes a pill that poisons the child. Yes, it absolutely is murder. You think these are hard questions but they are not. The morality on the pro-life side is pretty cut and dry; any attempt to kill an innocent, healthy, viable human child is wrong. Period. Full-stop. Even in cases where the mother is in danger and needs to end the pregnancy; the child could simply be delivered. There is no need to kill the child, that's an extra and unnecessary and evil step you'd have to go out of the way to do.

> Let's be real here, there is no 100% effective contraception method and out of 100s of millions of people having sex, probably a few million will get accidentally pregnant.

Yes, and? Are you trying to say that the killings unwanted children should be OK? Are you saying that the value the life of those children should be hinged on how much they are loved by their parents? What are you trying to argue, exactly? Serious question.

> You sound like someone who thinks that women who have sex should be punished for being whores.

Nice strawman, but I'm right here. I think that women who have sex and conceive children should be held responsible for raising those children. You must think that women in general are pretty infantile and cannot bear any responsibility whatsoever. Are you some kind of misogynist?

> So how about no uterus, no opinion? And kindly, hope you do not reproduce

Why are you assuming my gender? I have 2 children by the way. Let me ask you, do YOU have a uterus? If not, then kindly shut the hell up while the big girls talk.

It’s completely uneffective.

It doesn’t. You cannot legislate math. You cannot change the laws of physics either. These so called “laws” will do absolutely nothing to stop or even deter an committed criminal from so much as sharing child porn. It’s completely unenforceable. Public key encryption is even more powerful than symmetric encryption because it gives everyone the ability to establish a shared secret completely out in the open, effectively securing communications over insecure networks. Complete strangers without ever having to meet in person can send secret messages in a manner they can guarantee no one else can read and no one else could forge.

> Oh, since we can't have them benefiting from positive outcomes of collective action, we'll pipe in polluted air and river waste to help simulate a truly free market environmental policy.

That’s a completely artificial and shoehorned idea. If you want to prove a point about libertarians, do it properly in a closed system. They must be left to their own devices and are left to clean their own pollution.

Get a firearm and train with it. Your government prevents you from defending yourself effectively.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what qualifies as market rate.

> you can't be seriously arguing that any increase will force all unskilled labour into unemployment

Why not? If Peter's labor is only worth $X but minimum wage is raised to $X+5, a company can reasonably be expected to fire Peter. Now Peter is out of a job. Should I just take it on your word and evaluate policy based on its purported intent and not on the consequences?

The economist I'm quoting is Milton Friedman. Who are your economists, I wonder? Some liberal who wants to use the force of government to impose their will on small businesses so they can act virtuous to get votes?

I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Your rhetoric mimics that of a socialist. I'll tear apart your philosophical rhetoric one part at a time.

> human life and human labor has intrinsic value and any company's bill of materials ought to include labor.

Human life has intrinsic value, it could be argued from a moral standpoint, but human labor does not. What matters is what that labor is used for. I could have you spend all day making mud pies. That does not mean your labor is worth anything. The only thing that can determine the true value of your labor is what someone else is willing to pay for i.e. the market.

> Companies have been allowed to undercut worker's value for centuries under the threat of homelessness and starvation.

More people than ever before have been lifted out of homelessness and serfdom because of the free market. Companies working under a free market is a pretty new and novel idea.

> Companies are the only entities we allow to just take, setting their own prices, without quarrel

This is wrong on several takes. First and foremost, you're implying that workers in general should have the ability to unilaterally determine the value of their own labor a market. This is in direct conflict with the realities of the free market i.e. spending all day making mud pies. You can moan and groan all you want, but yes, if all your work requires is the basic use of your prefrontal cortex, your labor is less valuable than if you were a doctor. That's not the fault of the employer.

> Oppositionally, I believe in human dignity - I think a worker should be able to bargain.

They DO have the ability to bargain. Their ability to walk away is one of their most powerful things they can do. If you truly believe you're getting a raw deal and that your labor is worth more than whatever compensation company X is offering, then you should simply walk away and apply for company Y. In a free market, the role of the buyers and sellers are inverted because it is the companies that are the buyers; specifically they buy the commodities that are your labor.

And this is not even touching on the basic principles of supply and demand in context to minimum wage. The fact of the matter is, a minimum wage does not lift people out of poverty - it removes rungs from the bottom half of the ladder. Precious rungs to low skilled employees that use them to climb up out of poverty. Companies will not just eat the cost - they do not want to go out of business. They make a cost-benefit analysis and compensate for this minimum wage by firing their low-performing staff to make the remaining higher-performer workers work overtime. Now it's harder for new people with little job experience to find employment. Congratulations - you've just hurt the very people you've intended to protect. And this isn't even touching on the impact of dead weight loss caused by minimum wage. You need to study the basic concepts of microeconomics before formulating your philosophical principles, because as of right now, I can tell you that they are a little insane.

Yeah, I'm sure that not following the building codes in the state of Florida is financially beneficial to Disney.

> Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.

It is absolutely true. Stop lying.

> The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.

The district, in turn, provides services, including fire response, emergency medical services, water and sewage treatment, and can issue municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation. The arrangement gives Disney control over municipal services and autonomy when it comes to how the land is used and developed, exempting it from a number of regulations. Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.

You are very disingenuous. It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill. The idea that Disney Corp and its employees have special tax exemptions that is enjoyed by nobody else in the nation while advocating that they should be able to teach sexually explicit topics to kindergardeners to 3rd graders - and hide the fact they're doing so from their parents is abhorrent.

The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree, which is why they are removing their special tax exemption status. Disney should not and cannot influence Florida's policies when they (and their employees) are exempt from the very policies they influence. No taxation, no representation. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.

That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 - equality under the law. Why should disney be exempt from property taxes? From state taxes? What gives Disney Corp the right to influence the policies of Florida whey they do not subject themselves to those same policies?

The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.