The distinction here is extremely important. The fact that someone may choose to feel emotionally distressed by something I do (and it absolutely is a choice. That doesn't mean the choice isn't valid, but it must be seen for what it is) is never a sufficient reason to punish me.
The first amendment was particularly crafted with this necessary understanding. Indeed the whole point of that right is so that I CAN say things other people don't like that I feel need to be said. I should never intend to harm someone else, but I absolutely should be free to do things others don't necessarily like.
As for your example with the person who cannot recognize that what they're doing is wrong, that is correct. But there are other things we've accepted that need to be done to help both those people and those around them. While I have some serious issues with how far we sometimes go in terms of when it's ok/necessary to take people's freedom from them, that is one example where someone just honestly needs help.
How does preventing anyone else from ever seeing anything about them help "hold onto their heritage"?
No one is taking anything from these people. If anything, they're celebrating them and their heritage.
This is nothing but a selfish money grab. It's the exact same thing they've been doing for generations to the smaller communities around them. They've bankrupted every school and store within 100 miles of their land because judges are happy to bend over to them no matter how ridiculous their claims are.
companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are offering them TV and broadband bundles that are cheaper than what they'd pay for broadband alone in order to boost legacy TV subscriber rolls
I just got another one of these in the mail from Comcast today. This time it even offered speeds more than twice what I'm currently getting from them now. I refuse to sign up for this just to pad their numbers.
Why would I pay to watch commercials? Why would I pay for a ton of channels with nothing I want to watch on them?
This is insane (referring to the kid getting kicked out of school). It's a classic case of people who have no clue what the information they're looking at means making decisions based on paranoia.
We still don't fully understand what makes some genes active and others not in DNA. It's awesome what we've learned so far, but having markers of any kind doesn't really tell us anything right now. All we know is that we've seen these DNA strand patterns in others who exhibited certain traits and maybe there's some correlation. The fact that the kid doesn't actually have the disease is the only fact that matters.
Regardless of whether you think Facebook was ok doing this or not, there is nothing wrong with feeling that showing nudity in public is inappropriate. There is certainly no reason to throw insults at anyone that feels that way.
Making something a law, even a good law, does not take away the right to choose or make something not a choice.
Is it wrong to hit and run? Of course, but it's even more wrong to insist that someone should not have the power to choose what they do in a situation. They cannot choose the consequences of their choices, but they can and should have the right to make those choices.
You claim to be a member of an Age of Enlightenment, and yet in the same breath spend your time insulting and throwing derision at those you disagree with.
I find your position and actions to be pure hypocrisy of the worst possible form. If you cannot accept that it's ok for others to believe in things you do not, and respect them in their beliefs, you are the one stuck in the Dark Ages. That's exactly the kind of thinking the Dark Ages was guilty of.
"In computer programming, an application programming interface (API) is a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications."
An API exists whether anyone has taken the time to document it or not. The specification cannot be the API, or by definition an API could not exist until someone took the time to write a specification for it. All the specification does is tell you what's in the API.
I was simply joking around, but the point is a lot simpler than it looks.
An API is just a public member you can call. That's it. There's nothing more complicated about it.
Saying it's a specification is IMHO not correct. A specification describes the API, it is not the API itself. An API absolutely is code. The difference is just the public members, which are the API, vs the private implementation details, which are not.
I'm in an area close to one where Google Fiber has come in. While I can't get Google's offering yet (I'm still holding out hope :) ), my Comcast speeds have magically increased to 5x what they were when we first moved here.
We originally paid for 12Mbps. We've recently started getting 60. And no, our price hasn't changed at all. It's been funny watching this happen, honestly.
Thanks for sharing this. I didn't know any other vcs had tried to do this. I'm only familiar with most of the more popular ones, and the only other ones I've ever used are SVN, CVS and a dab at Mercurial.
Actually, this is not true of any other version control.
If you destroy the main branch (usually referred to as the trunk) in SVN, CVS, or any other version control software, everyone loses the ability to do anything with that repository ever again.
The only way to fix it for those is to create an entirely new repository somewhere and manually upload all the current code as if it was the first commit. You lose all your history and any ability to go revert before that point. Git is the only one that treats the main branch the same is any other branch.
For Git, all you do is mark another branch as main and you're done. You keep all the history and everything is as if nothing ever happened. Git is like bitorrent for version control, while every other one follows the old single point of download architecture.
Distribution is easy. All you need to do is let everyone know where to go. The difficult part has only ever been getting the files setup in the first place.